Leadership - schmeedership.

Am I the only one concerned with the who's-gonna-run-who's-not-gonna-run blogshite zipping around Libistan these days?

If I see one more fill-in-the-blank-for-leader.blogspot.com, I'm going join the Green Party.

We just got spanked.

We got spanked for a lot of things, not least of which was the cult-of-the-leader approach we took to the last 36 months.

In a sense, we're lucky.

The "Paul Martin's Liberals" brand is no longer an issue. It's very quickly about to become the political equivalent of Borax.

So why don't we come up with some ideas for you know... like what we stand for... ?

Let's be pround to be Liberals not just for where we came from, but for where we want to go.

This is a great opportunity to think about where we'd like to take the country without worrying what PCO, Finance, Justice, et alia think about it. Without having to run it through 43 caucus committees, 91 cabinet committees, PMO, the regional minister and... well, you know.

We don't need a leader who will quickly pronounce "I'm going to listen to caucus" either.

(Note to candidates: Caucus comprised exactly 134 votes in the last federal election, who were already in the "strong Liberals" category and was the equivalent of saying - I'm going to listen to myself. Try something new: "I and my caucus are going to listen to voters...")

I'm just saying, if you're thinking about running for leadership, come with some ideas. Come with a plan as to how to get some ideas from other people... like voters.

Don't worry about personality, I mean hell, if Stephen Harper can get elected - who needs personality?

Do as I say, not as I do... part deux

The Federal Ethics commissioner reported on Grewal-Conservative-Vote-for-Sale affair last week.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister-elect (requisite: ouuuuch, that hurts to say) was too busy to meet with Mr. Shapiro to provide testimony for the report.

Yes, it appears he just didn't have a spare moment in the three months the Ethics Commissioner conducted his investigation.

No worries, if all of this interests you, I'd suggest you click this link for "Buckets of Grewal."

I have no idea who this dude is or what she/he does for a living, but wow... she/he's the one to call if your spouse is slipping out the back porch. Pretty meticulous stuff.

Oddly though, none of his/her stuff made Bourque during the election, who was not supporting the Tories, or on their payroll.

Smart: What won't he do for a vote?

Wow. This is smart.

On the same day a study is released showing a four-fold increase in asthma cases in Canada, Prime Minister-elect Harper (yup, still hurts to say that) was admitted to hospital suffering from asthma.

Amazing. Talk about taking one for the team.

In all seriousness, the PM-elect is doing well, and is already back on the job, proving once again that Stephen Harper is no woosie, like, uh... Dick Cheney?

...and not smart: What will he do for a vote?

Public eye on-line is reporting that David Emerson is being suggested as a leadership candidate.

Interesting though, they are also reporting that who won't run to win, but " ....not necessarily because he'd win the race but instead because he'd be a rallying point for British Columbia Grits, thereby keeping the provincial voting block intact."

Uhm. David, if you're reading this and thinking about running, do us all a favour. Run to win.

If the BC grit crew are pushing you just keep the voting block intact, you might want to reconsider who your friends are... that's not about your success, that's about their success.

And that's not smart.

Liberal mole unmasked

Reminiscent Eric Neilson's admission on leaving politics that the conservatives in the 1980's had found a way to listen in on the Liberal caucus meetings via a miswiring of the intercom system, Stephen Taylor, BlogTory, has revealed the source of Liberal leaks on the campaign.

It was an ingenious plot clear only now with the revelation through conservative satellite photos.

Notice the the plot was hatched in Starbucks (an American company) not the Second Cup (a Canadian company) located across the street.

Brian is back

Interesting to see the old Mulroney gang back at the helm in this morning's Grope and Flail.

If anyone knows where the bodies are buried, it's these boys and girls. But it will make life difficult for the New-and-Improved-Conservatives.

Yes, they can have some fun with people like Guite, and his actions under the sponsorship program. But who hired him?

Yes, they can have some fun about the advertising contracts under the old OBS. But then some one might ask how were those contracts let under the Mulroney regime?

Well, the answer would be that Advertising Management Group handled that.

Oh, what was the AMG you ask? Uh, well, it was Minister Lowell Murray and some other ministers, and uhm, some staffers, well they... uh... decided who got what... then Minister Elmer McKay of PWGSC let the contracts...

I wonder if Senator LeBreton will be back in the appointments game?

Another defining characteristic of the Mulroney years were the huge ministerial offices. In some departments, much of the senior civil service positions were replicated in the political staff who worked as minders. The rational was that the civil service and judiciary were sooooo liberal, that they couldn't be trusted.... I've heard that recently...

Welcome back Brian. We missed you. Really, we did miss you.

Mais zut alors...

Leaders around the world have gotten into-calls from PM-elect Harper (oooh, that still hurts to say...) including President Jacques Chirac... or did they?

CKOI 96.9 of Montreal is up to their old tricks and apparently put in a call to le president de la republique themselves. I will be tuning in this afternoon at 4.30pm EST to hear that one...

The Leadership race

Much blogging of late on this subject.

I have very little to say about this, other than to suggest that this time, we should hold one.

You know, let's kick the tires on a few candidates, see if they've got what it takes.

I'm just saying, its important to learn from your mistakes.

What a difference a day makes...

...just 24 little hours...

Well, alright, maybe a couple of days...

Just watched the Harper newser and the flip-flops have already started.

Ding! Ding! Round one.

First we had Dingwall. Having railed against Mr. Dingwall for billing the taxpayer for personal expenses (which turned out to be wrong), then railed against Dingwall' 'entitlements', Harper was asked if he would make good on his commitment to ensure people who voluntarily leave not get a severance package.

The answer? "We need to get a look at the legal advice on this..."

Nice. Maybe you should have gotten the legal advice before you put in a commercial?

Apparently there were no lawyers in the Conservative Party who were able to provide such advice. A political party without lawyers? Surely not.

No worries Stephen, I think you will find your legal advice here.

Either way, I'd be concerned about a guy who checks with the lawyers only after he's in charge.

A line in the snow

Second we've got Arctic soveriegnty.

Harper had a 20 min chat with the President of the United States. That would be the president of the country with whom he is now disputing several thousands arpentes de neige.

Good on him too! Arctic soveriegnty is something we should be standing firm on.

However standing firm means telling the President you are standing firm. It doesn't have to rude, or loud. It has to be firm and clear.

Neglecting to mention that you're standing firm on arctic soveriegnty when you chat for twenty minutes with the President isn't really standing firm.

In fact, I'd argue it sends a message of weakness.

Forgetting to mention it until the end of you newser and then leaving before anyone can ask a question is... well .. clever... but won't work next time.

Conservatives: A culture of defeat

There are more than a few of us shaking our heads this week. And no doubt there will be some liberal amounts of liberal self-flagellation in the coming weeks.

But let's re-cap.

We spent nearly thirteen years in government. We accomplished some pretty amazing things.

We also got - fairly or unfairly - tagged with some silliness around a gun registry, the fiction of the "billion-dollar boondoggle," a sponsorship program where some naughtiness was done, an RCMP investigation into two government departments during an election campaign, an election no one except wanted Jack Layton, Stephen Harper, and Gilles Duceppe, and a campaign which admittedly was not our finest hour.

And we lost.

We lost because Stephen Harper got 124 seats to our 103 seats.

Harper got 36% of the vote, against our 30%.

According to Environics, of the 36% who voted conservative, 54% voted that way because they wanted a change, only 41% because they wanted a conservative government.

In plain english, only about 17% of Canadians want a Conservative government. The remaining 19% who voted conservative felt the Liberals needed a kick in the pants.

But for just one moment, imagine the positions were reversed, that the Tories had been in government and the Liberals had just won.

In my party, a leader who came home with that kind of result under those conditions would find his leadership under siege and questions about his ability to deliver.

Given the circumstances, anyone who regards 124 seats as a 'victory' needs their head examined.

Apparently not in the Conservative Party of Canada.

And that is what makes us different.

Liberals have vision.

We are about what is possible, about better government, about succeeding. We are about results.

Harper has won this battle, but he may yet lose the war.

Many of his coalition are social conservatives, small government conservatives, and fiscal ultra-conservatives. And they have a problem.

Social conservatives will want to re-visit the gay marriage debate. Harper may pry off a few liberals, but members of his own caucus such as James Moore and John Baird will likely vote against a change.

Small government conservatives will want to kill the national daycare programme. However, Liberals, NDP and BQ will line-up to keep Ken Dryden's work in place.

The fiscal conservatives will push for the GST reduction, but be hard pressed to roll-back the tax-cut for low-income Canadians in the first Tory budget... which is confidence motion... Again, Liberals, Dippers, and BQuistes may support the GST reduction, but likely won't support raising taxes on the poor.

Yes, the Tories won the election. But calling it a victory?

The only way anyone might figure this is a victory after thirteen years in the wilderness... well, they'd have to come from a Culture of defeat.

"If you don't vote, don't bitch"

So said the erudite American philosopher.... Steve Earle on the original liner notes of his 1987 album, Copperhead Road.

It's an important point.

Today, every Canadian citizen over the age of 18, has the right to vote in a federal election.

Please make sure you do that.

There are a lot of reasons why voting is so important, some of them are obvious, other less so, but all are important. I'd like to cover a few here.

1. You have the right.

Rights are like a lot of things, if you don't excercise them, they tend to disappear.

I'm hardly suggesting that Canada will fall into anarchy if you don't vote, or that a brutal dictator waits in the wings, but I am suggesting that if you want your government to take you seriously, then you need to mark your ballot.

Vote.

2. Make your kids crazy, and set an example.

If you're under eighteen, you can't drink, smoke, drive without your parents, buy nudie mags, and enjoy all sorts of other adult entertainment. Your kids are all waiting for the day they turn 18 to do these things.

Give them something positive to aspire to at 18. V

ote.

3. Some people gave up an awful lot so you can vote.

I'll say it. Thousands of Canadians gave up their lives to protect your right to vote, and to ensure others had that right as well. Some of them died quite recently, as you will see here, and here and here.

You'll note that these incidents do not necessarily include soldiers. They are aid workers and civilians building among other things, democracies abroad. They volunteer for this, leave home and family because they believe in a better world.

Show some support from home.

Vote.

4. Many of our parents and grandparents didn't get this opportunity.

Thousands of new Canadians arrive in our country each year, many from places where they can't vote, or where voting doesn't matter, where they had no choice in their government. Many of our parents came from similar places.

Show them what it is to be Canadian, that they have made the right choice in their new home.

Vote.

5. If you don't vote, don't bitch.

Ever get ticked off with the government? Think something was unfair? Well, if you don't vote, don't bitch. You had your chance, you blew it.

Don't blow it.

Vote.

Still don't know where or how to vote? Click here.

"They have to talk this way to get elected" or Silence is golden

"They have to talk this way to get elected," said Link Byfield, chairman of the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy.

This is a bit disturbing. For a Conservative Party leader who values democracy, and an open and transparent government to allow this to happen you have to wonder if he really means it, or if he's up to the job...

Equally odd, was Harper's response earlier this week to Don Newman that his own position on abortion was too complex. In short, he refused to answer the question.

This is what's going on today or rather what's not going on... during an election...

....CTV reports that US conservatives are being asked to keep silent to ensure they don't scare Canadian voters.

Note, they are not being asked to keep quiet because they shouldn't interfer in another country's politics, they are being asked to be quiet so they don't scare us....

....The Liberal war room lists eight socially conservative candidates who the Liberals claim have been muzzled by their own party. The candidates withdrew from debates, and consistently refused to speak to the media...

....Ed Hollet, maritime Liberal blogger, is noting that CTV Newsnet is reporting that one their reporters was physically restrained by conservative handlers when she attempted to ask a candidate a question yesterday.

There is something quite perverse about muzzling candidates in a systematic fashion

I go back to my question a few days ago about free votes....

And as the blogging Tories now set up with their usual the-liberals-are-desperate response to this... let me note, that while those are nice media lines, they still don't answer the question.

Jack and Gilles go up the hill...

... to fetch Stephen a pail of water,

And Stephen realized he doesn't need two water boys...

It looks as though we may be staring at another minority government next week. It's going to be an interesting one too.

Should Mr. Harper form a minority, I am sure that pundits will be looking back to Clark and Diefenbaker trying to decide if either are a relevant precursors to Harper's possible government.

Already there are some interesting paralells to Clark's reign. Some may remember that Clark had allied himself with the Ralliement creditiste. The RC was a mish-mash of Quebec seperatists and social democrats, in some respects similar to the Bloc Quebecois. He was defeated on a budget when his allies abstained.

Harper could find himself in a similar position.

Should he be elected PM on Monday, I am not sure it is unrealistic that Mr. Duceppe and the BQ recognizing that in spite of Gomery et al, the Liberals have a strong history in Quebec, and will do everything in their power to ensure Mr. Harper remains in place until the next referendum, expected in the next 36 months.

Which puts Layton in an interesting position.

Actually, it puts him in a pretty uninteresting position.

Layton, I predict, will quickly find out that no one cares what he thinks. Harper, propped up by seperatists, just won't need him. And if he squeaks on many of his key issues, no doubt Harper will remind him of his willingness to work with him in opposition and in the election.

This will change the political dynamic in Canada.

Harper has been comfortable to climb into bed with the seperatists in opposition, but its a different story from the Prime Minister's office. With a referendum looming if Charest loses, he will have to step very carefully.

Pulling a Deifenbaker and pummelling the Liberals in the hope of winning a majority could be a very short-sighted strategy, again because of the situation in Quebec.

Already the mistrust of politicians and the federal system is high. We've all noted CBC/Ekos & Globe and Mail polling demonstrating an interest in change, and low confidence level of politicians in Ottawa. But be careful, the polling didn't show a low-confidence in politicians of one particular party, it was a low-confidence towards politicians in general.

Holding a scandal-pinata party in Ottawa won't build any trust. Should the tories come in, the "change" will have been made. And should the Parti Quebecois defeat Jean Charest and Parti liberal du Quebec, Quebecers will quickly have a choice to make another change. A change, perhaps, less welcome.

Whoever wins on Monday will have to tread carefully.

Very carefully.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...

Things are heating up in Nepean-Carleton.

It all started last week with a story from appeared in the blogosphere at the Surly Beaver around a grant Michael Gaffney's company Learnsoft had recieved from ACOA and HRDC in 1999. The Beaver suggested Micheal Gaffney got the grant because his mother is Beryl Gaffney, a former liberal MP.

The Beaver appeared to suggest he had it from a source who he unfortunatley could not reveal.

But horror of horrors, Gaffney had earlier sold his company.

Fortunately, the Beaver was able to source this, as it was publicly available on the internet. Or as some people say, it was an transparent, legal - and normal - business transaction.

And all of sudden this was all on Bourque, who is certainly not on the Conservative payroll. He just trolls the blogsphere, randomly googling candidate names...

Amazingly, though the Beaver was able to find the evidence on the internet... the Beaver was unable to notice that Ms. Gaffney left politics in 1997. And she was from Ontario... which is not anywhere close to the Maritimes... which is where ACOA operates.

It also appears that the support came in loans, not grants. I know this because Learnsoft is a publicly traded company since 1999 which has completed its filings in the normal - and legal - way any other company does.

Even more amazing is that Pierre Poilievre, Gaffney's conservative opponent went right off the deep end (and off message) apparently suggesting his goverment would shut down these types of grants... which turned out to be loans... to the high tech sector...

...you know, the sector that employs a sizeable portion of the Pierre's consitituents...

...I mean, those constituents who aren't working for government... some of whom... process loan and grant applications from businesses...

Luckily, Pierre would not cut off other supports.

Now all silliness aside, it is pretty clear this is not a serious accusation. It's one candidate hoping to avoid liable suit, while another has to make a denial of something that really isn't true.

Yes, politics is a blood sport. But hold people to account for what they've done, not for what they haven't.

But if you've ever sat at home, and wondered "Those politicians, why don't they find some good people to run for office?"

Well, this is why.

And if you're interested in Gaffney's response, try this.

Team Harpie

Speculation on who might make it in to a Tory cabinet is getting interesting. PoliticsWatch had the first predictions on January 10th.

Rick Mercer has provided a few possibilities though in reading his predictions, it was hard to tell if he's joking.

Now, the National Post has chimed in with their picks for Team Harpie.

What's pretty interesting is not so much who's in, but who's out. I am not sure if Rahim Jaffer is going to be too amused by his NatPost coverage this morning.

Oh well, with the transit rider tax credit, maybe they won't miss the driver.

The legend of Bob Rae....

... A long time ago, in a province faraway, around 9 million people went to sleep one night, really, really, really ticked off with David Peterson and his Liberal friends.

They were angry because David had called an election too early, and was judged an Arrogant Liberal, who needed to be spanked.

And spanked hard.

Not spanked with-a-featherduster-and-your-wife-dressed-up-in-garters-spanked.

I mean spanked like your dad used to spank you.

Spanking like an Art Hanger wet dream.

And so, all 9 million of us went to bed on September 5th 1990, and lay there thinking, "Aw shucks, what damage can he really do? I mean hell, no one else going to vote for him... he might form a minority... I'm just going to spank those arrogant Liberals, give'em a good scare..."

Well, we spanked David Peterson. Yes, the same David Peterson who hangs around Paul Martin's Liberals like the Albatross in Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.

But you know, after four years of Bob Rae and eight years of Mike Harris and the Dollars and Cents revolution... um, I'm not really sure we spanked the Liberals.

I think we might have spanked ourselves.

Free Vote?

Apparently not.

I know, I know, the Blogging Tories will point out that in their Party Manifesto they promise a free vote on same-sex marriage.

But how free is that vote?

I'd like to say we don't know, he won't say. Unfortunately we do know, and but he still won't say, or sort of....

"HALIFAX (CP) _ The federal Conservative party has told two Halifax-area candidates not to talk to reporters about a meeting of clergy opposed to same-sex marriage that they attended Wednesday." Or so said CP on January 5th.

You have to ask yourself how "free" that vote is going to be if they are muzzling their MP's before they get elected.

Dancing with the ones what brung ya...

I guarrantee that Jason Kenney will not be outraged by this.

Stephen Harper spoke at a fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association (CASJFVA).

I'm shocked.

Stephen Harper spoke at fundraiser for a group who promote the traditional definition of marriage, and really don't seem to think the 'homosexuals' should get married?

Damn, I was sure I saw Stephen doing his best Tammy Wynette at Sailor's on Church Street just last week.

I guess I was wrong. He's the bald one with the moustache, right?

But I'm sure when Stephen gets to the Ball, he won't forget to dance with the ones what brung him.

Caveat emptor.

Flip-Flop.... part deux

It ain't over.

According to the Liberal War Room, Mr. Zeisman is now contradicting his former party leader suggesting that Mr. Harper new about his upcoming court appearance....

“In a newspaper interview, Zeisman insisted the party knew about the charges laid under the Customs Act,” the Canadian Press reported out of Vancouver tonight

I sense this part of the Liberal desperation. They must have secretly slipped something into Ziesman's drink, yes... that's it... can you really believe anything they say anymore? Those Liberals, they'll say anything...

Hang on a minute. It's not the Liberals... its Zeisman...

Darn. There goes my chance for a Bourque link.

Flip-flop... one down

I guess the pressure was too much.

As noted earlier, the Stephen Harper was originally doing a Tammy Wynette and standing by his man Derek Zeisman.

Alas poor, Derek, Stephen was not a man of infinite jest.

After being blissfully unaware of the impending court since December 23, Mr. Harper has punted Mr. Zeisman.

This still doesn't explain why it took almost three weeks.

Do as I say, not as I do

It appears that Conservative candidate and former Jim Gouk Staffer Derek Zeisman is headed to court as on smuggling charges according to CTV stemming from an incident in 2004 involving "112 containers of alcohol."

Mr. Zeisman did not agree to a CTV on-camera interview request, but did speak to a reporter from his hospital bed, where he is currently in hospital recovering from injuries sustained in a traffic accident. Public Eye Online provides the details of the recent accident, a seperate incident.

Mr. Zeisman is certainly innocent until proven guilty of both the accusations of smuggling, and of the reckless driving.

That's not the issue.

Stephen Harper is the issue.

"There is a screening process," Harper said. "My understanding is that it is supposed to look into criminal backgrounds, and obviously we rely on candidates to be forthcoming with information as well."

And so, Harper declined to pull his candidate.

Nor did he explain what exactly he meant by "we rely on candidates to be forthcoming with information as well."

He could have said asked Zeisman to run as an independant, and welcomed him into caucus after he was cleared by the courts.

He didn't.

That's not being tough on crime.

That's not being consistent.

That's not leadership.

I guess there is one set of rules for the Conservatives, and another set of rules for the rest of us.

And just in case you're wondering. No, Jason Kenney was not outraged by this either.

Kenney not outraged by...

.... this. It's a clip from Conservative candidate Rondo Thomas' biopic where Mr. Thomas provides and explanation of his concern about same-sex marriage.

It's not the usual concern either.

Rondo's concern is that marriage is for procreation. In his view, legalizing same-sex marriage will mean that those couples will not be able to procreate.

I'm not a biologist, but the issue of lack of issue from same-sex copulation can hardly be blamed on their marital status.

Again, I am not a scientist, you are not reading the New England Journal of Medicine, but I'm not sure procreation has much to do with marital status.

Rondo seems also to have a problem with the whole same-sex thing. Personally, I'm more worried about no-sex marriage, but that's for another blog.

Luckily, Stephen Harper did not send out Jason Kenney to express outrage about Rondo's lack of understanding of biology.

Kenney Outraged

The new liberal ads have Jason Kenney's knickers in twist.

Readers might remember Mr. Kenney as the man who was also outraged by Liberal Blogger Scott Feschuk's comment about Omni subscribers. Kenney was outraged at the obvious slag against a multicultural TV station.

Feschuck was referring to a now-defunct science mag. I was shocked that Kenny "reads" television, but I digress.

Now Kenney is outraged again.

Kenney's previous screw-up aside, I wonder who thought it was a good idea to use Kenney? As outrage spokespeople go, he's an odd choice. He does the outrage schtick almost as well as Rob Anders.

I'd have used Rona Ambrose, or Rahim Jaffer, or gosh, if you're outraged about a percieved slight against the military.... what about retired B.Gen Gordon O'Connor?

I guess Rona, Rahim and Gordon may not get to join Mr. Kenney on the way toRideau Hall.

Frankly though, I am not sure the outrage schtick will work.

The Tories went negative in the first week of the campaign. Stephen Harper has cut a close line, denying their ads were negative, and stating he was just"putting the facts in front of Canadians."


The fact is a negative doesn't deal with the facts, it deals with a point of view. Denying this erodes credibility. And credibility doesn't come back because nobody like a "cute" politician who seems to evade responsibility for their actions.

Good luck with that, Stephen.

Daycare - You want $100?

Well, you can't really have it.

Turns out that Stephen Harpers $100 a month for daycare isn't really $100.

It's a lot less.

Strangely though, the more money you make, the more you get, or so says the latest Caledon Institute Analysis.

Those crazy pinkos at the Institute read the small print and did the math. The small print says Stephen's daycare plan is taxable. Which is kind of wierd for a guy who says he wants to cut taxes.

This is how it works.

First, Stephen Harper taxes you to get the $100. Then he hires a bureaucrat to put in the mail and send it back to you. Then Stephen Harper taxes you again.

Bad news if you make $30,000 to $40,000 a year. You get to keep $673. Unless your spouse works, in which case you only get $460.

Thats what you get for working hard, playing by the rules, and paying your taxes under Stephen Harper.

The good news is, that if you make $100,000 a year (like Stephen Harper), you get to keep $1,032 a year. Unless you are single parent who makes $100k, in which case you only get to keep $655 a year.

Nice. If you make $100,000 a year, like Stephen Harper.