On "Rotation"

The new Afghanistan buzzword, but what does it mean and does it show any relationship to reality? One thing that Afghanistan has taught Canada, NATO is simply not an equal share military organization. You can knock on doors for eternity, certain countries will not make commitments consistent with other nations. Forget the Germans, forget the Italians, just forget the idea that all parties see Afghanistan in the same way. This is the starting point for a honest discussion of rotation.

The idea that Canada is part of some rotation makes sense when you prescribe to the idea of mutual self-interest, a band of countries together for a common cause. Canada has done its part on the frontlines, now different member states can takeover, while we operate in the background implementing other necessary work. That position sounds entirely reasonable, and it does to speak to the idea of fairness. However, when the ideal meets the reality, the notion of rotation sounds like pure fantasy.

There are only a few countries that are committed to Afghanistan, or better said, willing to put soldiers in areas that are hostile. When you couple this sobering reality with the widely held view that there needs to be more forces in volatile areas, it seems reasonable to wonder where in the hell the "rotation" comes from- how do you not only secure more troops, but in addition, find even more to take on our current role? Given past history, given the tremendous arm twisting needed to find a few hundred soldiers, the idea that you will find enough troops to do the job, with Canada out, is just counter-intuitive.

If you believe that Canada must stay committed to Afghanistan, and a military component is necessary (whatever the countries), you then have to go beyond the buzzword and tell everyone how you make up the difference, how you stay in Kandahar doing re-construction and training? If there is no equal rotation, then the security situation only deteriorates further, leaving our forces on the backlines prime for attack.

Here's my take, there is no rotation coming. There are only a few countries committed to the mission in the south, that is the pool from which to tap, and in many ways, it's tapped out. You can augment(France), which is required, but there is no replacement on the horizon. The question then becomes, is Canada staying or not, because our continued involvement demands a role on the frontlines. We can talk about focus, where the emphasis should lie, but I see all elements working in concert, more a matter of degree, than exclusivity. Until I see different, rotation sounds like a noble ideal, that has little chance of real application.

Liberal Amendments Preview

Some indication of what the Liberal amendments to the Afghanistan motion might look like:

The Liberal amendments fix the Canadian combat end date at February 2009; extend the military mission by two years for training and security duties; allow any military operation except "search and destroy" missions against the Taliban; and would give NATO notice immediately that Canadian troops will withdraw in 2011. They contain proposals for development and diplomacy.

Rules of engagement allowing self-defence by Canadian forces in the event of attack during training of Afghan army or police or during security duties will be made "crystal clear," Bryon Wilfert, the Liberals' associate foreign affairs critic, said in an interview with Canwest News Service Sunday.

The above seems to suggest a "combat" component, excluding the idea of offensive operations. Interesting to see if "search and destroy" means taking ground, or does it extend to eliminating known threats that intend us harm.

Bad Timing

You've just been lambasted in a series of primaries and caucuses. You need to change the channel, project a confident front, appear solid and unwavering. So, what do you do? Apparently, it's time to announce you are shuffling your campaign staff, a sure signal to the media that all is well:

Clinton Shuffles Campaign Team

Former Hillary Clinton chief of staff Maggie Williams will take over as campaign manager, Clinton staffers were told today. Current campaign manager and longtime friend Patti Solis Doyle will assume the role of senior adviser.

The switch has been rumored for more than a month – ever since Election Day in New Hampshire, when it was revealed that Williams would be joining the campaign in the wake of Clinton’s loss in the Iowa caucuses. At the time, Solis Doyle was urged to remain on board.

This announcement essentially guarantees another news cycle that raises more questions, clearly gives the appearance that a change is required, right before Tuesday's primaries.

According to the link, the change has been rumored for a month, why the campaign decides to announce this today is hard to believe. I suppose the campaign figured this was a bad day anyways, maybe this announcement would just slip through. I would argue you never make this announcement, if these people are staying on board, no need to formally define roles for the media.

Shuffling, especially at this stage, validates the idea that something had to give, the direction was wanting. However, by publicly acknowledging the need for change, it just fuels the speculation that Clinton's campaign might be in trouble. I say you shut up, keep everyone where they are, even if it a ruse, and ride it out, status quo appearance wise. If this was the decision of the new campaign manager, I don't like Clinton's chances moving forward.

Clinton: The Guiliani Strategy?

Last night's landslide victories for Obama highlights the inherent problem with the Clinton strategy. The campaign argues that Clinton just needs to hold on until the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio, assuming those states will re-energize what I would characterize as a faltering campaign. The problem, and last night was the first wave, Obama will continue to rack up impressive victories, ensuring momentum, positive storylines, while Clinton absorbs defeats, essentially on the defensive.

On Tuesday, we have the "Potomac" Primaries, with a healthy share of delegates at stake. Clinton is competing hard in Virgina, but by all indications, she is staring at an Obama sweep. Some polling:

Virginia (101 delegates):

Survey USA (Feb 8)

Obama 59%
Clinton 39%

Insider Advantage (Feb 7)

Obama 52%
Clinton 37%

Rasmussen (Feb 7)

Obama 55%
Clinton 37%

Maryland (99 delegates):

Survey USA (Feb 8)

Obama 52%
Clinton 33%

No numbers for DC, but everyone assumes that Obama will easily take the District. Conclusion, a healthy amount of delegates available, with Obama poised to win considerably more.

It seems every outlet has differing delegate numbers, which makes it hard to get a good read on the situation. However, you can see a worrying trend for Clinton, Obama now leads with pledged delegates:

Obama pledged: 969
Clinton pledged: 910

With Super-delegates:

Clinton: 1121
Obama: 1106

Obama has already surpassed Clinton with pledged delegates, this gap will only grow before the March 4 primaries (Wisconsin and Hawaii Feb 19, both are assumed strong for Obama). Obama will also surpass Clinton with in the dubious super-delegates included, dubious because they can change their minds, not to mention the decided anti-democratic flare.

There is also another fact, which tends to go under the radar, but may become a powerful argument, as Democrats look to break the deadlock. Obama has now won 18 states, to Clinton's 11. By the time we reach the March 4 showdown, Obama may well have doubled Clinton's state total. Imagine the spectre of a convention, wherein super-delegates give the nod to Clinton, without her leading in pledged delegate, or with Obama having won the majority of states, speaking to breadth of support. Ugly.

Obama will ride a wave of momentum heading into the March 4 contests. Don't be surprised if the framing takes hold that these primaries represent the make or break for Clinton. As the prospects of a brokered convention begin to sober the party brass, I see an effort to end this battle prior. Obama surges ahead prior to March 4, then Clinton forms her Guiliani firewall in Texas and Ohio. If Obama somehow manages to draw, which is conceivable, then Obama is sitting pretty, having racked up victory after victory, while Clinton waited, only to be denied what she needed.

Out-Flanked?

I don't share the enthusiasm that some have argued on the prospects of the Liberals fighting an election over Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, the more this story develops, the more it looks like the government is successfully painting the Liberals into a tight corner, that starts to look unrealistic.

The polls do show that Canadians want this mission to end, in it's current configuration. However, there is also a sense of some responsibility, the majority of Canadians are not in favor of abandoning Afghanistan. You could argue, and I've prescribed to this view earlier as well, that the Liberals have struck the right balance between demanding change and further commitment with their nuanced stance. That said, what has happened over the past month may have eroded that ground for the Liberal position, as the government has moved with vigor.

We can argue about Manley until the cows come home, but the bottomline, that panel has provided this government with a backdrop, a set of requirements, that if met, suggest "success". Harper is armed with Manley, a public relations exercise, that achieved the goal of setting out parameters that everyone can focus on. Should the government meet those objectives, it then presents a more attractive argument for extension.

At this very moment, the government is involved in intense negotiations with the French to secure the required troop increase, "demanded" by Manley. While this is occuring, word comes of Poland helping us with our helicopter requirement, not to mention MacKay suggesting there would "be more news" on that front in the coming days. Fast-forward to securing commitment from other NATO allies, you then have to wonder if it is realistic to then argue that Canada's combat role should end. Think about the optics, we have secured more troops and helicopters, others have stepped up to help Canada, then Canada turns around and says we are leaving the front, for less risky terrain. The spectacle of that diplomatic hypocrisy is something every Liberal should keep in mind.

Here is the Conservative motion, introduced yesterday:

Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the government of Afghanistan can defend its own sovereignty and ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost...

House supports the continuation of Canada's current responsibility for security in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to the end of 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, but with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously to take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole so that, as the Afghan National Security Forces gain capability, Canada's combat role should be commensurately reduced...

The Conservatives leave room for a combat role, but put emphasis on a shifting mission that focuses on training and re-construction. The Liberals are essentially arguing the latter aspects, while stubbornly insisting that the combat portion be eliminated. The simple facts, if Canada remains in the volatile south, there will be casualties, there will shots in anger. It is almost naive to think that Canadians can remain this region, without the Taliban attacking the invaders. Common sense assumes that there will be some combat, maybe not offensive operations, but clearly a "security" component. I think it folly to dismiss the opinion of Hillier, when he says it is unrealistic to think we can entirely eliminate the military component, not in the south.

The government will emphasis the shifting emphasis on the mission, armed with Manley and the powerful commitment of other nations to "help" Canada. Where are the Liberals, if they demand an end, just when the conditions of Manley are met. Other countries, willing to fight with us, then we say "this isn't for us", we will do other things. I see that as a hard sell for the Liberals, given that Harper only needs 40% of Canadians to get on board. Harper has moved onto the Liberal position, maybe the best course for the Liberals is too jump on board, eliminate the issue entirely. Otherwise, the Liberals risk arguing the margins, while the thrust is mostly consistent, a stance that isn't necessarily the advantage many of us saw earlier. Right now, at this moment, Harper is out-flanking the Liberals.

Shifting Sands

You know the old saying, "a week in politics is a lifetime". Republican Senator Thad Cochran demonstrates the phenomenon:

"The thought of McCain being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Feb 1/2008

Today:

"I am supporting John McCain for the Republican nomination for President."

Feb 8/2008

Next week:

Expect him to stump for McCain, with a wool sweater, lest he catch a chill.

Harper Rolling The Dice

When is the last time we saw two seperate polls, showing the Liberals ahead? The headlines tell a similar story, from Decima "Conservative Support Sags", now Nanos(SES) chimes in with "Tory Support Slides". Quite an interesting backrop, considering all the election saber-rattling coming from the Conservatives. Both polls are within the margin of error, but it seems clear the Conservatives have fallen back. Nanos:

Liberal Party 33% (-1)
Conservative Party 31% (-4)
NDP 19% (+2)
BQ 10% (+1)
Green Party 8% (+2)

November results in brackets

Good news for the NDP, which haven't scored this high from Nanos since the second quarter of 2006. Bad news for the Conservatives, just like Decima, now hovering around the 30% mark (Decima 29%), an indication of real erosion in support.

The regionals:

Ontario:

Liberal Party 43% (NC)
Conservative Party 31% (-1)
NDP 19% (NC)
Green Party 7% (+1)

Quebec:

BQ 37%(+4)
Conservative Party 23% (-6)
Liberal Party 22% (-1)
NDP 12% (+1)
Green Party 6% (+3)

Atlantic:

Liberals 42
NDP 27
Cons 22

There is also numbers for the "west", whatever that means. which shows the Tories up 11%, 2% less than the November polls.

The margin of error is quite high for Atlantic Canada (10.4), but still noteworthy, the NDP is now in second for the first time.

Last week, we had two very reliable Quebec only polls released. Nanos tends to mirror those findings, with the Bloc re-establishing itself as a dominant force, the Conservatives falling, Liberals stabilized. These type of numbers are real trouble for the Conservatives, they represent no pickup in Quebec.

What is more concerning, coupled with the Quebec numbers, the Liberals continue to enjoy a very large lead in Ontario (sorry Ipsos-Reid). Again, if these type of numbers hold (Decima shows Libs +14), we could actually see the Liberals gains seats, remembering that last election the gap was only 5%.

It isn't a stretch to see the Conservatives lose seats in Atlantic Canada, go nowhere in Quebec, lose seats in Ontario and maintain the status quo out "west" (British Columbia aside). The possibility of a Liberal government is real.

Dion Closes Leadership Gap

Well not really, but take what you can get I suppose. SES has new leadership numbers:

Most Trustworthy:

Harper 30 (-1 since Nov poll)
Dion 14 (+2)
Layton 21 (+7)

Most Competent:

Harper 39 (no change)
Dion 16 (+5)
Layton 15 (+2)

Leader with best vision for Canada:

Harper 32 (-3)
Dion 17 (+2)
Layton (+3)

Of note, Harper holds a large advantage over Duceppe in Quebec, on all questions.

A BIG caveat for Dion, if you take the SES numbers from one year ago, Dion is -6 on trustworthy, -6 on competence and -4 on vision. The good news, Harper is decidedly down as well.

Cherniak is making wild claims that Afghanistan is OUR issue. Mostly mindless, robotic propaganda, per usual, but I think we should look at the issue with these numbers in mind. Harper does have a massive advantage in terms of leadership and convictions. Is there another issue, besides Afghanistan, where Harper better demonstrates his leadership credentials? I don't care for the man, but when he speaks on Afghanistan, he does so with a genuine zeal that translates well for him. In other words, Harper looks like a leader on the issue, agree or disagree with the position.

If, and this remains an if, the Conservatives have calculated that they will fight an election with Afghanistan at the fore (this will be unavoidable, if the question remains open, the vote never taking place), it is important to acknowledge the rationale for doing so.

On first blush, it looks an odd choice, given the opinion polls. Look closer, Harper never needs a majority, only 40%, which is attainable. Factor in some acceptance of pushing forward, IF the Manley conditions are met, and I actually see some fertile ground for the Conservatives. We will only continue if these conditions are met, is attractive to the nervous voter, it might tilt the mental math for some people. And, don't doubt for a second, a big announcement during the campaign, that speaks to reaching these commitments. These people are always looking for an edge.

I believe we are seeing the final chapter of a co-ordinated dance that began with Manley. The pre-ordained conclusions allow Harper to use a Liberal against the Liberals, this is not a dynamic to ignore. There are hawks that vote Liberal, can Harper siphon off a few supporters, a couple points that will tip the election?

Harper is gambling here, no question. But, running on Afghanistan isn't as risky as it might appear. Over-confidence on our part fails to acknowledge a simple fact- Harper doesn't do anything without plotting the terrain. If the Cons move on Afghanistan, assume they see potential.

Why McCain?

Whether you like him or not, John McCain as Republican nominee is a healthy development for American political discourse. You could take the view that it is counter-intuitive to want McCain for the Republicans, simply because he has the best chance against the Democrats. Why would you pull for the biggest threat, isn't it better to have a non-electable stooge like Romney?

The American hard right have always held a disporportionate voice, that wing has held the Republican party hostage for decades. The influence has effectively forced the Democrats to move closer to the center, on several fronts center-right. The hard conservative influence has tilted the entire political spectrum, because these people vote more than other demographics, they organize more, they mobilize, they create havoc, they unleash insane attacks to derail the process.

Should John McCain emerge as the nominee, it will represent a seismic shift for the Republican party. Conservatives are going ballistic at the prospects of McCain, and in so doing, are revealing themselves as the irrational, unstable ideologues that they are. The fact that, despite the howling, McCain still marches on, is a testament to the fact that a candidate doesn't necessarily need to pander to the loonie right to be successful. Conventional wisdom always held the view that it was impossible to win without this engaged demographic. Early on in the process, McCain did dabble with the right, some effort to appease, but in the end, the "maverick" continued to speak on topics which infuriated the supposed base.

What does it say now, that we have all the leading neo-cons screaming about McCain, and yet they seem powerless to stop him. The simple fact, moderates are throwing their weight around, those voters are moving in droves to McCain. In addition, Huckabee is also taking considerable heat from the likes of Limbaugh, and yet voters still respond. Polling consistently shows that McCain is the clear second choice of Huckabee voters, which is quite different from the frame that Huckabee hurts the conservative darling Romney. The two candidates that did well on Super Tuesday are both hated by the supposed powerful conservative movement.

McCain means the right has failed to hold the party hostage, its influence is waning. I take that as a great development for the overall level of discourse moving forward. A shift in the political spectrum that puts the right-wing on the sidelines, somewhat marginalized, as opposed to domination. I'm not arguing these people are gone, but their is no question they are crippled. A candidate can win without their blessing, a reality that seemed like nonsense just a few months ago.

Heading into the general, I see nothing to fear from a Republican who voluntarily brings up global warming, who resists the racist undertones of the immigration issue, who never envokes god, gays and guns. It will be a substantive debate, never a bad development in terms of process. The best part, the right will be forced to whine like babies, with full knowledge that they are largely excluded from the national debate. The obnoxious blow hards on the right have been silenced, still talking, but yielding little influence.

Will There Be An Afghanistan Vote?

I'm not so sure, in fact the proposed vote might be an illusion, put out for partisan advantage. This is what Dion said today:

“We'll do it in a civilized way this time. We'll have the time to look at that. [Mr. Harper] doesn't want a vote on Afghanistan before the vote on the budget ...

The Afghanistan vote will come after the budget, which is a critical point. Last week the government reversed course and tabled the industry aid package separately. Some conjecture here, but that flip flop suggests the Conservatives were worried the budget wouldn't pass, and they didn't want the stench of political blackmail hanging over their head during an election. In taking the aid package out of the budget, Harper now has a talking point in a campaign. The fact that Harper backed down on this point is very telling, and I see it as a recognition that the budget won't pass.

Now, we learn that the critical Afghanistan vote won't occur until after the budget. If you assume the Conservatives have calculated the budget is unlikely to pass (we already have the Bloc and NDP firmly against, the Liberals obviously encouraged by recent polls), then delaying the Afghanistan vote might be more about posturing than a real "civilized" debate.

Harper is desperately trying to look diplomatic on Afghanistan, in a sense distancing himself from direct ownership. Manley was always a political exercise first, and now Harper has that powerful tool as argument. The question then becomes, would Harper rather run with Afghanistan still on the table, demanding a majority to implement Manley? In some ways, you assume Afghanistan is a weak spot, but you don't need a majority to agree, just around 40%, which is conceivable.

The other two big issues on the table are the economy and the environment, both of which present obvious challenges for the government. Could it be that Harper feels confident enough with his "bi-partisan" panel to force Afghanistan to the fore during an election? When you look at the alternatives, Afghanistan might not be half-bad. Harper's advantage lies in his apparent leadership qualities, fighting a campaign on Afghanistan might highlight his strengths.

I'm starting to think that the Afghanistan vote is more theatre, than reality. Harper presents the vote, to give the perception he is seeking approval, reaching out, all the while having calculated his budget will fail. What is really going on here will crystalize once we start getting some leaks of what is in the budget. If there are "poison pills" or hardline offerings, then we know with certainty, the Afghanistan vote was never on the table.

I'd Rather Be Obama

Moving forward, Obama achieved what he needed yesterday, stay close in delegates, remain competitive beyond Super Tuesday. It looks like Obama will stay within 100 delegates of Clinton, a goal the campaign set for itself heading into last night. Clinton had significant victories last night, so there is reason for her to crow, but in the end, California effectively saved her night. Obama ended up winning more contests, a fact which is given considerable attention. If you accept the premise that this race is wide open, then a look at the future suggests advantage Obama.

The Clinton campaign has already admitted that the calendar is no longer kind for the rest of February. Conventional wisdom assumes Obama will do quite well in the three contests this weekend. Those contests are followed by three more the following Tuesday, again states that play well for Obama. The next Tuesday, three more races, which both sides admit are good for Obama. Basically, the Clinton campaign have come the realization that they may have to hold on until March 4th, when big prizes Ohio and Texas weigh in, with potentially friendly Rhode Island and Vermont to boot. In terms of momentum, a friendly calendar obviously works to Obama’s advantage.

Obama has another serious advantage looking ahead, money. Obama raised an astounding 32 million dollars in January, a figure which boggles the mind. By comparison, Clinton raised 12 million, which under any other circumstances would be considered formidable. The Clinton “machine” will face a serious challenge, as Obama has the resources advantage to try and nullify. Obama’s ability to raise cash will only be enhanced if he continues to win primaries, big or small.

It’s such a close race now, predictions are meaningless, so any comments are just temporary conclusions. That said, if I’m Obama today, I see no reason for anything less than real optimism, if I’m Clinton, some nervousness.

Waste Of Time

The much hyped Afghanistan meeting between Harper and Dion, to discuss this complicated issue, turns out to be mostly a farce. Here's why:

The two leaders disclosed little after their 25-minute talk in the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa.

Take out the requisite couple of minutes for small talk, and you're left with about 20 minutes of actual "discussion". That translates to Harper offering his superficial position, Dion re-iterating his alreadly known views.

The big outreach, the meeting of the minds, the attempt to find common ground, reduced to basically a discussion of soundbites. Impressive stuff.

UPDATE:

This explains the detailed meeting h/t Mushroom:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has warned Liberal Leader Stephane Dion that the Conservative government is prepared to go to the electorate as early as next week to seek a mandate to extend the military mission in Afghanistan, CTV News has learned.

An attempt to bring people together, or really an occasion to issue threats and ultimatums? Typical.

Super Wednesday?

Anyone who is planning to stay up to watch the California results, might want to think again:

Want to know who will win the California primary? You'll probably be waiting until Wednesday morning -- and maybe longer.

"The East Coast is going to tune in the next morning and we are still going to be counting," said Stephen Weir, the president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and the top election official in Contra Costa County.

One interesting dynamic, besides the maddening inability of a state to count ballots in a timely fashion, the early returns will most certainly favor Clinton:

8:00 PST. Tuesday: After the polls close, all 58 counties will start to report the results of the mail-in ballots that have been received and counted over the last month. Weir expects about 3 million votes to be reported. (Overall he's predicting 56 percent of the state's 15.7 millions voters will cast ballots.)

Only in recent days has Obama closed the gap, which should translate to Clinton receiving strong support with early voters. The media will be dying to make predictions, should be fun watching them over-analyse the early returns.

All Tied Up

New poll from La Press(Uni-Marketing), that shows a federal deadheat, Quebec numbers that mirror last week's Crop numbers:

Total/Quebec



Conservative (PC): 33%/26%

Liberal Party (PLC): 33%/21%

New Democratic Party (NPD): 18%/12%

Bloc: 8%/35%

Others: 8%/6%

For context, the Crop poll of Quebec had it Bloc 36%, Cons 27%, Liberals 20%, NDP 13%. Two very reliable Quebec polls, these numbers are probably accurate.

Dion is apparently engaging in a charm offensive within Quebec. A great idea, although you have to question the wisdom of appearing on a talk show during the Super Bowl. Some of Dion's handlers need a refresher course in maximizing exposure, getting bang for your appearance buck.

The national numbers tend to mirror what others have started to show(Ipsos aside). This poll puts Liberal support at 43% in Ontario, no Conservative numbers, but a healthy figure indeed.

The last poll for this outfit had a solid lead for the Conservatives(Oct):

Cons 36%
Liberals 25%
NDP 19%
Bloc 10%

Good trend for the Liberals, Conservatives not so much.

Conservatives Back Down

The government is set to reverse itself over the 1 billion dollar community assistance fund. No longer tied to the budget, the Conservatives will introduce the measure alone today:

After coming under heavy criticism, the Harper government is doing an about-face and promising immediate help for struggling one-industry towns.

Federal sources said the Tories will table a motion Monday calling on Parliament to immediately approve their $1-billion community development fund.

The government previously said the fund would only go forward if the opposition passed the federal budget.

I guess the only question, why? Obviously, the notion of holding these communities hostage, part of a political power struggle, presents horrible optics for the government. Maybe more than that, I think the Conservatives may have concluded that the budget is unlikely to pass and they don't want this issue around during the election. If the aid package passes, then Harper has another talking point, a concrete initiative to help struggling economies, something to blunt the obvious opposition criticisms. That reality is far more attractive than the spectre of all the opposition parties pointing to political opportunism over good government during a campaign.

I read this "flip" as a calculation that an election is likely, that the government can't successfully use this issue to force passage of the budget. Looking at the fallout, much better to have something tangible, rather than the failed argument of blaming the opposition. In addition, the Conservatives can now argue that they didn't flip, but were merely recognizing the need for immediate action.

You Promised

If you listen to a Harper speech, his central thesis revolves around the idea that the government has kept its promises, his pledge to Canadians met. If the opposition is looking for an effective retort to this looming election frame, there is one area where the Conservatives are especially vulnerable. The Conservative pledge of open and transparent government becomes more of a farce with each passing day. The idea of a controlling, stifling, secretive, regressive, censoring government finds numerous examples, easily woven into a coherent theme. A National Post article asks the experts to weigh in:

Robert Marleau, the information commissioner of Canada, says that contrary to Mr. Harper's election pledge to make transparency a hallmark of his administration, a "fog over information" has crept across the government's activities.

Marleau said complaints to the commissioner's office about lack of access to government information have doubled in the past year...

Mel Cappe, a former clerk of the Privy Council, says the Mr. Harper government's approach to communications is counterproductive because it forces journalists to fill in the gaps on their own.

"It's in the government's interests to make sure the people in the know, who have actually thought about the public policy implications of an issue, are available to actually give background," he said.

I doubt Canadians will respond well to Orwellian characterizations. In fact the notion of a secretive government, that attempts to hide information from the public, is a powerful message for the opposition. The reason why the talking point could work, there are so many examples in play, in almost every department. Whether it be Afghanistan, the environment, access to information...plenty of fodder to make a strong case. The Conservative will come with "promise made, promise kept", to which the opposition needs to respond "what are you trying to hide?".

Super Stalemate?

Super Tuesday was supposed to settle it all. The latest batch of polls gives the impression that the "national primary" might be more of a Super Stalemate for the Democrats. With delegates awarded by proportion of the vote, it's hard to see a commanding frontrunner.

Here are the most recent results for many states:

California (Zogby Feb 2):

Obama 45%
Clinton 41%

This is the first poll to show Obama ahead in California, and it tends to confirm what the Clinton camp has privately acknowledged, California is tightening.

New Jersey (Zogby Feb 2):

Clinton 43%
Obama 42%

Georgia (Zogby Feb 2/Mason-Dixon Feb 1:

Obama 48%
Clinton 28%

Obama 47%
Clinton 41%

Alabama (Survey Jan 31):

Clinton 47%
Obama 47%

Missouri(Zogby Feb 2/Mason-Dixon Feb 1)

Clinton 44%
Obama 43%

Clinton 47%
Obama 41%

Connecticut (Survey Jan 31):

Obama 48%
Clinton 44%

Arizona(Mason-Dixon Feb 1):

Clinton 43%
Obama 41%

Colorado and Minnesota also look like close contests.

Obama has a massive lead in his home state of Illinois, Clinton a large, but not as decisive lead in New York. These two states could cancel each other out delegate wise.

A couple other state, where Clinton has a large lead, but basically there is a realistic scenario where Super Tuesday settles nothing. All things being equal, Clinton will probably get more delegates, but not enough to to appear inevitable. Should Obama take California, the psychology of that victory may reset the entire race. Interesting article here that outlines why time might be on Obama's side.

Also, there is a new, well respected, national poll released today, confirming a very tight race:

Days before nearly half the country votes in the Super Tuesday primaries, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are locked in a tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination, their competing themes of experience vs. change now precisely dividing their party.

Clinton 47%
Obama 43%

Should be a fascinating night.

Edwards Supporters Split Evenly?

There are lots of factors at play in a fluid race, but two Democratic tracking polls seem to support the idea that John Edwards supporters have split evenly between Clinton and Obama. Gallup:

January 29:

Clinton 42%
Obama 36%
Edwards 12%

February 1:

Clinton 48%
Obama 41%

The February 1 rolling poll is the first with Edwards completely removed. If you take the 12% Edwards had on the last day of his campaign, you see that Hillary rose 6%, Obama 5%.

Rasmussen:

January 29:

Clinton 41%
Obama 32%
Edwards 12%

February 1:

Clinton 45%
Obama 37%

Clinton up 4%, Obama up 5%, with Edwards eliminated from the poll.

In both surveys, we see the vote pretty much evenly split. The problem, you can't just isolate this one factor as completely reflective. However, there is nothing to suggest that Edwards supporters have moved on masse to any one candidate.

Gone To The Dogs

The "endorsement" game in American politics has reached the level of the absurd. CNN found it necessary to pen a story on the internal conflict that confronts Snoop Dog, as he struggles with his choice:

(CNN) — Days before 22 states are set to hold Democratic primary contests, it appears at least one crucial endorsement is still up for grabs: Rapper Snoop Dogg's.

The rapper and music producer told CNN's Larry King he is torn between both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's historic candidacies.

"I just want to see somebody win in the best interest of America — whether it be [Obama], a black man, or whether it be Hillary, a woman,"

Crucial indeed. Rumor has it that Hillary's team have temporarily stopped courting John Edwards, in a last ditch effort to secure Snoop before Super Tuesday. The next logical question, what will 50 Cent do?

War On Science Continues

The Conservatives latest salvo in their co-ordinated effort to undermine scientific discourse comes with contradictions. Earlier this week, we learned that the government would now censor scientific findings, now we find out the National Science Advisor was pushed out, not voluntarily as Jim Prentice first offered. This is what Minister Prentice's office offered on Wednesday, in response to criticism of eliminating the Advisor role:

But Prentice's office suggested its critics should check the facts, noting that the government's decision was in response to a letter sent by Carty in October when he announced his retirement.

According to Carty, the facts suggest he actually retired, when he realized his position would be eliminated:

Dr. Carty told The Globe and Mail yesterday he decided to retire from the public service after being told his nearly four-year-old position would be phased out.

Confused?

Carty:

“I was particularly disappointed about the office disappearing as my hopes had been that I would, as a national science adviser, help make this a permanent institution in the government of Canada at the centre of government as it is in a number of countries,” he said yesterday.

Dr. Carty said he didn't want to wade into partisan politics, but did offer this opinion of the Conservative government: “It does on the surface seem to suggest they want less advice, not more.”

The federal union representing 55,000 scientists, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, issued a statement yesterday describing Ottawa's recent decision to terminate the position as “deeply disturbing.”

The rising concern over the decision comes as several science experts warn that the Conservative government's new approach to science is too focused on making money, leaving questions of ethics and the public good behind in the rush to discover new products.

When this government first took office, the record shows an almost immediate distancing from environmental groups, and a quick slash and burn of many programs. These quick reactions suggested a pre-conceived posture, rather than a thoughtful review of direction. At every turn, with numerous examples, there is an effort by this government to stifle scientific opinion, shut people out of the process and gut programs which were deemed effective(according to the AG).

Given the body of evidence, propaganda aside, it is now clear- our government is actively engaged in a war on independent scientific inquiry. It's not hype, or fear mongering, these people really are scary.

"I Will Campaign For Hillary If It's McCain" : Ann Coulter

Liberals Close Fundraising Gap

In the last quarter of 2007, the Liberals closed the fundraising gap, as well as the number of contributors. Here are the numbers for each quarter, for context:

Cons:

First: 5 176 736 (45 192 contributors)

Second: 3 768 122 (36 794 contributors)

Third: 3 152 985 (32 812 contributors)

Fourth: 4 892 921 (44 324 contributors)

Libs:

First: 531 141 (4 365 contributors)

Second: 1 268 043 (9 951 contributors

Third: 793 835 (7 849 contributors)

Fourth 1 944 946 (13 618 contributors)

NDP:

First: 1 237 972 (14 782 contributors)

Second: 722 760 (11 773 contributors)

Third: 594 479 (10 857 contributors)

Fourth: 1 424 524 (15 698 contributors)

Greens:

First 154 451 (2 669 contributors)

Second: 197 373 (2 801 contributors)

Third: 218 505 (3 143 contributors)

Fourth: 414 274 (3 390 contributors)

All the parties had their best fundraising totals in the fourth quarter, except the governing Conservatives.

The Liberal totals are encouraging. The first quarter numbers are skewed, due to fundraising fatigue, in the aftermath of the leadership race. All parties see a downturn in the third quarter, typical during the summer months. If we use the second quarter as a good comparison, we see the Liberals have closed the gap with the Conservatives. What was a 3-1 money advantage is down to 2.5-1. What might be more important, the 4-1 lead in contributors is down to 3-1, a good sign that the Liberals are doing a better job engaging the grassroots. One caveat, the NDP still draws on more contributors than the Liberals, so plenty of work to do.

The total number of close to 2 million is a good sign, particularly in an environment where many donations are going elsewhere, namely helping the former leadership contenders pay off their large debts.

Good news too for the NDP, who raised almost as much as the Liberals for 2007 (quick math 4.7 million to 4.1 million).

The Conservates still hold a commanding lead in terms of fundraising, but at least the trends are better. Finally, there looks to be some evidence that the Liberal braintrust is coming to terms with the new fundraising rules.

Unbelievable

We've all heard stories about the Bush administration censoring government scientists, any conclusions ultimately vetted and edited by a former oil executive before release. Today, comes news that the Conservatives are once again imitating the disturbing practices of their American cousins. This is unbelievable:

Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."

The new policy, which went into force in recent weeks and sent a chill through the department research divisions, is designed to control the department's media message and ensure there are no "surprises" for Environment Minister John Baird and senior management when they open the newspaper or turn on the television, according to documents obtained by Canwest News Service.

"Just as we have ‘one department, one website' we should have ‘one department, one voice,' " says a PowerPoint presentation from Environment Canada's executive management committee that's been sent to department staff.

The reality, says insiders, is the policy is blocking communication and infuriating scientists. Researchers have been told to refer all media queries to Ottawa. The media office then asks reporters to submit their questions in writing. Sources say researchers are then asked to respond in writing to the media office, which then sends the answers to senior management for approval. If a researcher is eventually cleared to do an interview, he or she is instructed to stick to the "approved lines."

Partisans will decide if scientific inquiry has value, based on their preferred talking points. Let that reality roll around your head for awhile, the implications are absolutely staggering. We have to get these backward assholes out of government, they are rotting our system from the inside, discreetly but systematically.

Tipping Point?

First John Kerry, then Ted Kennedy, will this endorsement put Obama over the edge:

But on Tuesday, as his home state headed to the polls, Florida resident Hulk Hogan announced his own presidential pick: Democrat Barack Obama.

File this endorsement under the "Who The F*#@ Cares" column.

Conservatives Hate McCain

One of the best things about John McCain, the way he drives the lunatic right-wing off the deep end. You can't be all bad, when you receive these glowing reviews:

"McCain has been an active promoter of the global warming hysteria -- for which he has been lauded by radical environmentalists -- and he is a co-sponsor of a leftist scheme for energy rationing."Rush Limbaugh

“I'm here to tell you, if McCain get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it."Rush Limbaugh

"There’s nothing redeeming about John McCain,” Tom DeLay

"McCain has done more to hurt the Republican Party than any elected official I know of.” Tom Delay

“On energy bill, we’d be drilling in Anwar today if…and John McCain himself killed our ability to drill in Anwar.” Tom Delay

"I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.” Rick Santorum

"“There’s nothing worse than having a Democratic Congress and a Republican president who would act like a Democrat in matters that are important to conservatives.” Rick Santorum

"There are decent, intelligent people who believe that equity or efficiency or both are often served by government setting prices. In America, such people are called Democrats." George Will

"John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth.

Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws.

I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska." Ann Coulter

Quebec Poll

The latest Decima poll had the Conservatives falling into third in Quebec. Fuddle Duddle's Antonio made the point that CROP had the Conservatives doing much better. I responded that CROP's poll was outdated. Well, wouldn't you know it, new poll today from CROP:

For the federal Parliament, support in Quebec for the separatist Bloc Quebecois shot up to 36 percent from 31 percent, while the Conservatives of Prime Minister Stephen Harper fell by four points to 27 percent. The federal Liberals were up two points in the province to 20 percent and the left-leaning New Democrats down two points to 13 percent.

The poll covered 1,000 people from January 17-27. Such a sample should give the same result -- within 3 points 19 times out of 20 -- as if the same questions were asked of the entire Quebec population. The last poll taken November 22 to December 2.

The poll also shows the PQ up provincially, in position to form a minority government.

The CROP numbers mirror Decima's findings for the Bloc and the Liberals. Both show an uptick for both parties, both show the Liberals out of the teen's. Both polls also show Conservative erosion, however CROP still has the Conservatives a strong second at 27%, almost half the Decima finding (14%).

Antonio was right to suggest the Tories are still in the mid-twenties, but the trends are down, and people have gone back to the Bloc. This boost for the Bloc seems to go in concert with the provincial PQ fortunes. Also, I don't think it a coincidence that the ADQ numbers are dropping provincially, in tandem with the Conservatives.

For the Liberals, this CROP finding is somewhat better news, in the 20's again, some distance from the NDP. For the Conservatives, any erosion in support, coupled with a Bloc rise translates to little seat gain, a desperate component of Harper's majority dream.

Here We Go Again

The Conservatives are threatening the Canadian Wheat Board once again, with ideological zeal, that attempts to usurp process, not to mention democracy:

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz issued an ultimatum to the Canadian Wheat Board yesterday, saying he intends to introduce legislation to end the board's monopoly on barley sales with or without its support.

After meeting with major players from the barley industry yesterday, Mr. Ritz urged the board to back the government's efforts to create an open market for barley at its meetings in Winnipeg this week.

Mr. Ritz said having the Wheat Board onside would remove any political barriers to getting legislation passed. At present, the opposition parties are in favour of maintaining the board's monopoly power.

The minister's request puts the board in a difficult position because it would be contrary to the Canadian Wheat Board Act for the board to approve deregulation.

Ritz, like his predecessor Stahl, presents a stunning lack of respect for democracy. The CWB board is ELECTED by members, it is not some detached regime that isn't representative:

A majority of the farmer-elected directors is in favour of keeping the monopoly,

If you want to change the monopoly, there is an easy route, a novel concept called ELECTIONS. If, as Ritz posits, the board needs to change, then the farmer have the means to bring that change about. The fact that the directors are mostly "pro" monopoly translates to a simple fact- the grassroots majority supports the status quo. Why the government can't get that basic truth through their ideological heads is quite amazing.

People can argue the merits, the pros and cons, but it all boils down to one fundamental- there is already a mechanism in place to bring about reform, and that mechanism is called DEMOCRACY. What the government suggests is really an affront to free choice, ironic given the arguments for opening up the system. When the farmers actually elect pro-choice directors, then the debate is real and honest.

Poll Regionals

Here are some regional results from Decima's latest offering. Bad news all around for the Conservatives, with the Liberal well ahead in Ontario, a solid second in Quebec:

In Quebec the latest week’s results find the BQ with 37%, the Liberals 21%, the Conservatives 14%, the Greens 13%, and the NDP with 12%. Over three weeks, the BQ leads with 37% compared to 21% for the Liberals, 16% for the Conservatives, 13% for the NDP and 9% for the Green Party.

• In Ontario, latest results show the Liberals with 44%, compared to the Conservatives 30%, the NDP 15%, and the Green Party 10%. Over three weeks, the Liberals lead with 40% compared to the Conservatives at 31%, the NDP at 15% and the Greens at 12%.

• In BC, three week averages show the Conservatives with 34%, the Liberals with 25%, the NDP with 20% and the Green Party at 18%. In Atlantic Canada, three-week averages show Liberals with 36%, the Conservatives at 33%, the NDP 23%, and the Greens at 6%.

The Liberal lead in Ontario is fairly impressive, if numbers like the above hold, then a Liberal minority isn't out of the question.

The Conservatives numbers in Quebec are depressing, in fact I don't remember results this low for quite some time. Also, a decent result for the NDP.

British Columbia is very competitive, but what is quite striking, the Green Party support. The Conservatives best chance seems to be vote-splitting, rather than impressive support for the party.

While the total poll numbers show the Liberals up a mere 2%, these regionals suggest better prospects. Don't be surprised if Dion starts talking tough again ;)

Nobody Buying

The good news, people can see through the veneer, the Manley "demands" nothing more than a false choice. Jeffery Simpson jumps in with an opinion that is starting to gain traction:

But 1,000 troops are what is being sought, and 1,000 will be found. The Manley panelists are all experienced, wise people. They knew from their private sources, and from reading the public sources, that the Americans would never allow Kandahar to go without troops. Nor would any of the panelists have accepted the invitation to serve, given everything we know about then, wanting to design an exit strategy for Canada.

They all believed this to be an important mission, the question being how to make it more operationally successful and politically defensible at home. They would not have thrown out that 1,000 figure, without, in almost certain likelihood, knowing the U.S. (and possibly other countries) would be prepared to help.

It's time for some honest questions, directed towards this panel and it speaks to credibility. Why does the Manley panel try to frame the debate on points which seem self-evident? Why present the argument as yes/no, our involvement is on the line, when you have some knowledge that the "must" is already in the works? The panel refuses to acknowledge the likelihood, which seems a deliberate attempt to skew the current realities and project a tough stand, when really you already have knowledge of a successful outcome. The fact the Manley panel fails to present an honest assessment, should make everyone suspicious of motivations. As the Manley panel conclusions are digested, it becomes increasingly obvious that the exercise is more public relations, than an actual fair assessment of the situation moving forward.

Duffy Questions Manley's "Demands"

Interesting discussion today on Duffy's show. Duffy had Conservative strategist Jeff Norquay on, lauding the Manley report for its "hard" demands. What was amazing, Duffy's response, basically arguing that Manley's conditions were only offered, because success was guaranteed. Here is the exchange:

Jeff Norquay: The Manley report is not talking about more of the same. It's talking about some very specific and some very hard conditions, which must be met if Canada is going to continue to be there. It's also talking about expanding the job.

Duffy:

In all fairness, do we really believe that John Manley put out the request for more equipment and a 1000 more troops not having had some back channel assurance that those troops would be available?

I don't believe it. Nice to know Duffy isn't lapping up the propaganda for a change, he can still smell a skunk from time to time. You need a combination of naivety and partisan deduction to take any of this process at face value. The Manley report is grand production, the actors chosen, the script pre-determined, the suspense fiction.

Decima Poll

So much for the Ipsos poll, that showed the Conservatives opening up a significant lead, Decima poll conducted through the weekend suggests otherwise:

A new poll suggests the federal Liberals have edged back into the lead over the governing Conservatives.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicated the Liberals were the choice of 32 per cent of respondents, compared with 29 for the Tories. The NDP stood at 16 per cent and the Green party at 12. The Bloc Quebecois was at nine per cent nationally but led the pack in Quebec with 37 per cent.

I can't find any internals yet, but for context the last Decima poll, conducted the week of January 6th had the Tories leading 37% to 30%, with the NDP notching 13%. One caveat, that poll was taken after the holidays, never a good indicator of real support.

Newman's roundtable tried to use the Ipsos poll as the baseline (taken mid-week), inferring the subsequent drop was due to the PMO scandal over the detainees. That may well be, and I don't doubt some damage, but the Ipsos offering was always suspect, so the drop might not be quite that pronounced.

Whatever the reasons, the fact the Liberals lead in this poll should ease the concerns of the "nervous nellies". I'll update when the internals come out, but I have a feeling the Conservatives DON'T lead in Ontario, as Ipsos suggested.

Breaking: The Sky Is Blue

In a shocking development, Harper has endorsed a process he engineered. The funny part, Harper's emphasis on "if", trying to present a choice, when really its all a ruse:

“The government accepts the panel's specific recommendation of extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan if, and I must emphasize if, certain conditions are met,” Mr. Harper said.

The first big "if" is more of a "when", as Harper later comments:

The report, which found security in Kandahar is deteriorating despite the efforts of 2,500 members of the Canadian Forces who are stationed there, also set the purchase of medium-lift helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles as a condition for the mission's continuation.

The government has already placed its order for helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles and is working with allies to secure them quickly, said Mr. Harper.

Fingers crossed ;)

The other "if", securing those elusive NATO forces, which everyone knows are already in the mix. I'm willing to take wagers on NATO (the Americans) finding some way to come up with 1000 (quite a massive force we demand) troops. We shall overcome!

Harper endorses Manley, the sky is blue. Anything less, now that would be news.

Harper Creates Leadership Vacuum

Very telling article, outlining the frustration of those in the business community, as it relates to climate change policy. Flaherty recently commented that a "patchwork" approach to climate change would lead to uneven regulation, harming the economy. This belief is re-iterated here, and serves as a testament to the leadership vacuum, the failure of the Conservative government to set the tone:

Some businesses are becoming hesitant about investing in Canada because of the "policy chaos" on climate change being created by the federal and provincial governments, says the head of the country's top business group.
In a letter to provincial leaders being released Monday in advance of the premiers' two-day meeting in Vancouver, Tom d'Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives chides the premiers for going it alone on climate change with "different objectives and often inconsistent policies".

" They're all over the map . . . it's policy chaos," he said in an interview.
"We're talking about issues that will have a profound impact on major industries and ultimately Canadian consumers, and if you (governments) all moving in different directions it means you have overlapping regulations, conflicting relations."

D'Aquino called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to convene a series of first ministers' conferences on climate change, saying the issue is among the most critical challenges facing the country.

The reason provinces are "going it alone", in a myriad of directions, is because Canada lacks a cohesive policy, the domain of the federal government. The Conservatives have failed to listen to the provinces, Alberta excluded, and this reality has forced different jurisdictions to adopt their own frameworks. In the absence of federal leadership, Canada is creating "chaos".

Further evidence of the disarray, Ed Stelmach can't even bother to show up for a Premier's discussion on climate change:

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach will attend today's portion of the two-day meeting in Vancouver, which will focus mainly on provincial trade barriers. But he will not be at tomorrow's session, where many of the premiers are hoping to strike a national accord on how to deal with the fallout from global warming.

Mr. Olsen said he is not attending the climate change talks because, "he has lots of work to do in Alberta."

The federal government's failure to deal with the elephant in the room, allows for such arrogance on the part of Stelmach, allows for other provinces to react unilaterally. This government needs to step in and set the agenda, hopefully the emerging complaints from the business community prompt some action, because that interest group would appear to have Harper's ear. What we see now, is a complete and utter joke, amateurish, and above all, anything but serious.

Clinton Lost More Than Just The Vote

South Carolina degenerated into a ugly spectacle of racial tension and political ambition. To say the voters in South Carolina were turned off by the tactics of the two-headed Clinton is an understatement, by all accounts many were just plain offended and angry. Obama trounced Clinton, beyond any one's wildest expectations, in every demographic, in all quarters. It's still yet to be determined how South Carolina helps Obama on Super Tuesday, but at the very least, he is clearly back in the game.

One aspect of Obama's campaign, that I had admired previously, his intentional resistance to playing the race card. A candidate first, not much emphasis on skin color, no sense of pandering to a demographic. Whether your candidate of choice or not, it was a fascinating statement on just how far America may have come, the first hint that the debate was moving forward.

That sense all changed after New Hampshire, as the stakes were raised in this dogfight of a nomination. Unfortunately, it was the Clinton's that decided to interject race into the equation, in response to the idea that African Americans might rally to Obama. A pre-emptive strike, which ultimately soured the entire process.

Last night, African Americans did rally to Obama's side, exit polls suggest a full 80%. Obama carried all groups, women, men, drew even with whites, but it was what happened with African Americans that was interesting, and it may have a lasting impact.

After Obama's convincing victory, Bill Clinton referenced Jesse Jackson, arguing that he too had won South Carolina before, which was an attempt to downplay any momentum. Bill Clinton's characterization is just plain offensive, it diminished Obama's achievement, but more than that, it makes the parallel, based solely on race.

I remember when Jackson ran, particularly the first time. Jesse Jackson never had very much appeal outside of the African American community, in many respects his campaign was more of a statement, than a realistic opportunity to become President. Jackson did well, but there was always this sense that the bid was "limited".

I see no parallels with the Obama campaign, apart from the superficial. The fact that Bill Clinton made the connection, knowing full well the nature of the Jackson bids, was very disappointing, not to mention quite petty. Bill Clinton, the man fondly remembered as the symbolic "first black President" is now reduced to playing politics along racial lines, uses words to fracture, all in the name of personal ambition.

If Barack Obama is now the "black" candidate, it isn't because of his deeds, but in reaction to those of others. If African Americans are turning against Hillary Clinton, despite her impressive historical ties to that community, it more to do with the unseemly, then it is Obama using race to his advantage. The way in which the Clinton's have conducted themselves in the last few days will have lasting impact, and it would seem, it's justly deserved.

Americans Leaving: "Don't Count On It"

Interesting column today by Greg Weston, which essentially supports the idea that Manley knew full well his troop "demand" was already in the cards:

So, do Manley and his panel of experts know something they didn't tell us in their otherwise frank and revealing report handed to Stephen Harper last week?

Maybe so.

Turns out the Yankees are coming in a matter of weeks, and the only question is how long they will stick around.

Sources tell us that at the very moment Manley was in Ottawa this week releasing his report calling for NATO reinforcements, high-ranking U.S. military officials were only a few blocks away, planning exactly that with their Canadian counterparts.

The answer, sources tell us, is our troops will soon be getting everything the Manley report says they urgently need -- and then some.

Manley must have been aware of these discussions, if not then his panel is incompetent, irrelevant to serious discussion.

Weston acknowledges the public uncertainty of deployments past seven months, but comes to the same conclusion I've argued:

"This is not meant to be an open-ended deployment," says one U.S. source. "It is limited to seven months, and hopefully by the end of the Bucharest summit, NATO as a group will have laid out a plan to fill those gaps that have been identified for a long, long time."

Don't count on it.

If, after 7 months, no other country is prepared to augment the American deployment, does anyone really believe the Americans would just pull out, leaving the south exposed? Me neither, which makes the Manley "demand" more a study in setting up favorable framing, rather than the frank choice the panel presents.

Ipsos Poll

The numbers:

Shows the Tories resuming their lead on the Grits, with 37-per-cent support compared to 29 per cent held by their main opposition. The poll shows a jump in support of four per cent by the Tories, while the Grits dropped six per cent since the last survey two weeks ago.

The NDP trail behind the two main parties with 14 per cent support while the Greens have 10 per cent.

Quebec, the Conservatives back in second place:

The Bloc Québécois, meanwhile, leads in support in their province with 35 per cent, while the Tories hold second place with 26 per cent, ahead of the Grits who hold 21 per cent. The NDP is at 12 per cent in the province, while the Green party holds only five per cent of Quebecers in the poll.

Conservatives ahead in Ontario:

the Tories enjoy the lead with 39-per-cent support while the Liberals trail at 33 per cent. The NDP is at 15 per cent in the vote-rich province while the Green party can claim 12 per cent of decided voters.

I don't necessarily buy the Ontario numbers, Ipsos is notorious for over-stating Tory support in the province, relative to other polls. In fact, Ipsos is the only pollster to have shown the Conservatives with a notable lead in Ontario.

The last Ipsos offering(January 12) had the Liberals leading 35% to 33%. The Liberals a solid second in Quebec, leading in Ontario.

I don't see much that has happened to explain the apparent turn in fortunes for the government.

Van Loan: I'm A Liar Too

Interesting defence of Sandra Buckler from Peter Van Loan. I lie too, and so do my colleagues for that matter:

"She acknowledged she misspoke, and she handled herself in a professional and competent fashion," said Mr. Van Loan. "If everybody up on the Hill who misspoke themselves once in their life had to resign, none of you would be here, I wouldn't be here, nobody would be here up on Parliament Hill."

Harper: Facts Are Irrelevant

Harper's speech yesterday contained one quote, which suggests unsubstantiated fear-mongering should shape policy, rather than those pesky "statistics", factual measurements, rooted in objective analysis. Referencing the government's "law and order" agenda, Harper criticizes other's for:

"(They) try to pacify Canadians with statistics," Harper said, suggesting emotion should outweigh empirical evidence.

"Your personal experiences and impressions are wrong, they say..."

Harper admits the facts on the ground don't support his claim of rampant crime, a society turning violent. Harper argues it is wrong for government to use empirical measurements to help guide policy. What matters, apparently, preying on people's fears to maximize political gain. We are irresponsible in our presentation, but we know the public psychology, so we can capitalize.

Harper advocates a war on reason, and when you extrapolate that mentality on the role of government, the implications are frightening. We know best, emotional response is more important that rational analysis. Those that mention facts are "apologists", those that point to the empirical are "soft". I'm sure that sort of crappy logic plays well to the minions, but it really is a pitiful characterization that defies the basic premise of "good government".

Ipsos Afghanistan Poll

Ipsos polled Canadians about their opinions on Afghanistan, in the wake of the Manley report. The conclusion:

"This is a report that has not fundamentally altered the underlying support of Canadians for their current positions," Wright, vice-president of Ipsos Reid, said Friday in an interview. "They've basically maintained the same thing for the last couple of years. But what it's done is opened the door to us staying there in another capacity."

"It's not hard against, it's not hard for," he said. "There's no mandate given here for anything except discussion about more details as to what they may do."

I read the above as supporting the idea that the Liberals, in particular, don't need to take their policy cues from the Manley panel.

The poll finds support for outright withdrawal weakening:

The portion of Canadians who want Canadian troops to withdraw from Afghanistan has dropped seven points to 37 per cent.

If you add the people who want the mission extended, the status quo, plus the people who support a presence, but different, you find a majority:

The portion willing to extend the mission if the role shifts from combat to non-combat, such as training Afghan soldiers or police officers, has risen five points to 45 per cent since October.

"Only 14 per cent believe we should be doing the combat mission as we currently are," he noted, "but when you add them to the people who say we should stay and maybe do something different, then you have a full majority of the people in this country believing that to be the case."

Overall support for the mission remains unchanged:

Ipsos Reid reported that Canadians received the Manley report "cautiously," given that regardless of the panel's recommendations, the country remains split - 50 per cent in support and 46 opposed - to the current counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan. Those numbers were virtually the same in August.

Afghanistan polls reveal a sophistication in Canadian opinion, opinions that aren't easily swayed. People are able to differentiate between a realization that Canada has a role to play and what that role should be. The poll credits Manley for generating further discussion about the future of the mission, and I suppose that fact is a positive coming out of Harper's public relations exercise.

Manley "Vindicated"?

Raphael is lauding a Toronto Star article as "vindication" of Manley's demand for more troops in southern Afghanistan. Manley wasn't "disingenious", as myself and others argued, and the proof is found in Gates comments:

Asked if he could see a scenario where the U.S. Marines headed to that area could stay beyond seven months to help the Canadians and others, Gates responded: "No."

"This is a one-time plus-up, this 3,200 Marines that we're sending over there," Gates said. "But I have started a dialogue with my NATO colleagues about falling in behind the Marines when the Marines come out, for others to go in and take on some of the responsibilities that they have – that they will have carried out."

Gates said he hopes that at upcoming high-level meetings, including the summit of NATO leaders in Bucharest in April, NATO allies will have "a more positive reaction and provide the kind of additional support that ... the (Manley) report has called for."

The Americans are trying to pressure other NATO countries to commit troops into the volatile south. Heading into the critical summit in April, does anyone really expect Gates to commit prior to negotiations? Taking Gates at face value here is naive. Do we expect the Americans to say- hey NATO, don't worry about those troops we asked for, we've got it? Do we believe unnamed sources or do we buy Gate's public face? In my mind, given the stakes, the posturing, the negotiations, anything less from Gates at this point is irresponsible. I think my friend Raphael needs to consider one word- leverage.

What A Croc

You've heard it a million times. One summer day, you're sitting in your backyard, enjoying a beverage with friends, minding your own business, then all of a sudden you're in the midst of burning embers, towering flames, as another rouge forest fire appears from nowhere. You try to flee, but your main escape route is blocked by an approaching funnel cloud, not to mention the earth tremors that betray your every step. You finally make it out of the apocalyptic scenario, while dodging gangs of thieves that tend to gather, only to find the road closed, as the Canadian military conducts one of its regular sweeps for hidden IED's. Welcome to Canada:

Australians considering a trip to the Great White North may find themselves quickly making other plans after reading their federal government's travel advisory on Canada.

"We advise you to exercise caution and monitor developments that might affect your safety in Canada because of the risk of terrorist attack," the website reads...

Tornadoes can occur in some areas of Canada between May and September. Bush and forest fires can occur any time in Canada."

The warning also mentions the threat of white "flake-like" material falling from the sky during "winter", which apparently has some co-relation to cold. Skiers from Australia may experience this bizarre phenomenon.

Canada, clearly not for the faint of heart.

New York Times Weighs In

For what it's worth, the NYT editorial board endorses Clinton and McCain. A nice boost for Clinton, a mixed blessing for McCain:

Clinton:

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.


McCain:

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

What is interesting about this particular endorsement, how it plays with the respective base. I'm quite certain that Clinton's camp has released a memo to anyone who will listen. I've just read that on the Republican side, it is actually the Guiliani and Romney campaigns that are spreading the word.

Conservatives in American share the same martyr, paranoid delusions of their Canadian counterparts- the mainstream media is part of co-ordinated conspiracy to silence their voice, a threat. The NYT embodies the medium, which is why their endorsement is a double-edged sword for McCain. Many conservatives will view this endorsement as proof that McCain really is a closet Democrat, someone who can't be trusted.

The endorsement made its way to the Republican debate tonight, particularly a scathing reference to Guiliani:

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking."

Giuliani was asked to respond, and he seemed to relish the opportunity to paint the NYT as liberal, a biased operation that had an axe to grind. The response played well, the anti-endorsement spun as a plus in conservative circles. I thought McCain demonstrated some awareness of the dangers in the endorsement, because he came to Guiliani's defence, almost refudiating the paper who had heaped praise. Strange dynamic.

One camp is happy, the other will probably never mention it again.

"Small Man" Or "Great Man" Of Confederation?

I guess it depends who you talk too:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says there's "something wrong" with federal legislation to redistribute seats in the House of Commons.

He says he agrees with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who opposes a Conservative bill that would increase the number of seats for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

Dion says he wants to be a good partner to McGuinty, calling him a "great man" of Confederation.

The right policy, not to mention playing to the Liberals base.

Globe And Mail: Whatever You Say Ed

Stelmach's fraud of a climate change plan was released today, which basically argues that Alberta will carry on unabated, leaving it to technological advances to make up the difference.

Most of the 200-megatonne reduction would come through the use of expensive technology to capture CO2 from power plants and industrial facilities and inject it deep underground, the premier added.

Stelmach plays the Harper/Baird game, using 2005 as the baseline, as opposed to the internationally recognized 1990. Obviously, this benchmark allows for the appearance of more progress than is really there, a decision which reveals much about intent. Stelmach argues that Alberta can reduce emissions 14% below 2005 levels by 2050. Stelmach then offers this logic:

The long-term goal of the plan is to reduce emissions to 14 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2050, an effective cut of 50 per cent if emissions continued to increase at their current rate, Stelmach said.

All jurisdications could use this argument, just as a function of, economic and population growth. All that matter is the bottomline, 14% reduction, based on a dubious starting point.

The playing with the numbers brings us to the Globe and Mail, Canada's journalistic beacon. The Globe and Mail headline:

Alberta aims to cut greenhouse gases by half by 2050
NORVAL SCOTT

Globe and Mail Update

January 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM EST

CALGARY — Alberta has set a target to cut its projected greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2050...

A shining example of journalistic scrutiny there, the G and M intentionally misleads with this ridiculous headline. Someone should tell British Columbia's Campbell that no, he isn't committed to a 33% reduction by 2020, it's really more like 50-60% factoring in doing absolutely nothing, in a growing economy. Wait until Minister Baird does his own math- you thought Canada was leading the world now, just wait!! What rubbish.

WANTED- Journalists with critical eye, that don't parrot whatever is fed to them, able to distinguish themselves as something other than a conduit for political propaganda. Norval Scott need not apply.

Edwards Hair

John Edwards has taken considerable flack for his well groomed hair. Last night's appearance on Letterman provided a funny moment:

Manley's False Choice

The people who defend the Manley panel’s relevance, point to the report’s demand of 1000 NATO troops to assist Canadian forces in Kandahar, as evidence of a hard-nosed approach, evidence the status-quo is unacceptable, moving forward. Yesterday, I pointed out that this demand was more bluster, than actual position, because the panel already had indications that NATO, specifically the Americans, were already on side with this troop increase.

Today, it comes as NO surprise to read the following:

Sources at NATO headquarters in Belgium and in the United States have indicated in recent days that two marine battalions being sent to southern Afghanistan for seven months this spring with specific orders to assist the Canadians are likely to be followed by even more marine battalions in 2009 and 2010. This was possible because the Pentagon has begun to slowly wind down combat operations in Iraq and because the marine leadership has been pressing hard for a bigger role in Afghanistan.

The officer, who did not wish to be identified because he was not authorized to speak about the issue, said U.S. help for the Canadians had been in the works for several months.

“In the works for several months”, which confirms the disingenuous demand. Manley presents the demand, as though Canada’s future participation is contingent, and yet he knew full well that the support was already in the cards. In other words, the threat was a ruse, designed to make it appear as though Canada was hardening its position, Canada would accept nothing less.

The fact that the Manley panel presented the NATO troop increase as an unknown, something to be decided, when the panel knew otherwise, speaks to the fact that this endeavor is nothing more than a public relations exercise. If the panel was honest, it would have acknowledged the reality that plans are already in place to provide Canada with what it requests. Instead, this point is omitted, which projects a false premise, clearly meant for political consumption, rather than an accurate read of the situation. This demand is nothing more than appeasement, present a stance which makes it look like Canada’s continued role is conditional, when really the path is already determined.

Instead of applauding this report, people should be asking why Manley presents a false choice, why he fails to acknowledge that NATO already has plans to do what he “demands”. This disingenuous choice speaks to credibility, speaks to motivations and is intentionally misleading.

UPDATE

Two panel members admit the demand is easily achieved:

In a meeting Wednesday with the National Post editorial board, Mr. Manley suggested it should be relatively easy to muster the additional troops.

"It should be achievable, it should not be that difficult," he said...


Derek Burney, another panel member and former Canadian ambassador, said both the United States and France are likely candidates to provide additional troops. He noted the U.S. last week committed to sending 2,200 marines to southern Afghanistan for seven months.

If just half of those troops were stationed in Kandahar permanently, it would fulfill the panel's proposal, Mr. Burney noted.

Translation, much ado about nothing.

Nasty

I can't remember the last debate I've seen, that was so full of animosity, exchanges that put both candidates in a poor light. Last night's Democratic Party debate highlighted, what has become a very unseemly nomination process. If you missed it, here is a particularly nasty exchange between Obama and Clinton:


Given the characters involved, plus the stakes, it is likely to get worse, before it gets better. The only winner that I saw last night, apart from Edwards trying to appear above the fray (the same guy who tag teamed Clinton in the New Hampshire debate), was John McCain who became a frequent talking point, as to who was most able to defeat him in a general election.

The big question, is this heated nomination, that is becoming increasingly racial in character, damaging the Democratic brand, weakening their prospects come the fall?

Nothing To See Here, Move Along

A couple of weak demands, vague timelines, aspirations we have heard before. The "highly anticipated", "independent" panel does its job, mirrors the Harper government, provides plenty of leeway, and above all proves it was over before it started.

Can we get our money back?

"Bush" League

I constantly marvel at the childish tactics employed by the Conservatives. Ignatieff is set to deliver an "academic" speech in Alberta, pretty benign stuff, and yet the soldiers are mobilized. It's disgraceful that a prominent Conservative is urging Albertans to "crash" the speech. In the grand scheme, hardly surprising, for this gang of paranoid adolescents:

A member of the Conservative national council is urging party members to attend a speech that Michael Ignatieff will give in Alberta on Friday so they can pepper the deputy Liberal leader with "skeptical" questions.

In an e-mail sent to the presidents of 14 Conservative riding associations in Alberta, Vitor (Victor) Marciano says the lecture was arranged by Anne McLellan, the former deputy leader of the Liberals who is now a distinguished scholar in residence at the same institute.

"We need a skeptical, questioning audience for this hypocrite - especially after his recent performance in Afghanistan," wrote Mr. Marciano, referring to the trip Mr. Ignatieff took this month to the war-wracked country with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

"Hopefully many of you can make it out to this lunch time session. Please circulate."

Is this what it has come to in Canada? Can we now expect organized gangs of hecklers to follow leadership around, hyper-partisanship reigns? I'm pretty sure any Liberal MP would be subjected to a sceptical audience in Alberta, which makes this call to arms all the more unattractive.

There are constant discussions about partisanship in this country, and how it detracts from "good government". Conservatives often accuse others of "playing politics", and yet this government has set a tone which is unprecedented and regressive. My goodness, let Ignatieff have his little speech, that will be sparsely covered, in a region that poses no threat to Conservative fortunes. Instead, these rabid dogs are summoned to ensure an embarrassing spectacle, one that clearly does nothing for discourse. The brownshirts are coming.....

Rudy's Flawed Strategy

I don't think I've ever seen a more flawed strategy, than the one embraced by the Guiliani campaign. If Guiliani does manage to pull out a victory in Florida, it will be more accident, than sound chess. Guiliani has never controlled his own destiny, which in and of itself speaks to pure folly. In by-passing the first six contests, his fate was contingent on a series of events, transpiring in such a way, to provide opportunity. How anyone could characterize a strategy that voluntarily makes one a spectator, guarantees little free media, provides no momentum and leaves Guiliani dependent as wise is beyond me.

Today, we have three seperate polls of New York released, which provide the most graphic example of Guiliani's seismic blunder. Rudy Guiliani now trails in his home state:

Marist:

McCain 34
Guiliani 19
Romney 19

Zogby:

McCain 24
Guiliani 21
Romney 14

Siena:

McCain 36
Guiliani 24
Romney 10

Average- McCain leads by 10 points, which is staggering. One caveat, these numbers are quite fluid, although the implications are clear.

In addition, Guiliani has lost his big lead in New Jersey, McCain has a slight edge in the last two polls. Guiliani once commented that Connecticut was a firewall state for his campaign- latest results McCain 39, Guiliani 16. Trailing in Pennsylvania, well behind in California, states tailor-made for a moderate Conservative. Everywhere you look on Super Tuesday, Guiliani is decidedly weak. Factor in a campaign that can no longer afford to pay campaign staff, and its a gloomy picture.

Of course, all of the trends could change, should Guiliani manage to win in Florida, a state in which he once had a huge lead, now slightly behind. However, even if Guiliani does take Florida now, his rivals are still in good position.

Let's say Guiliani does win, for arguments sake. All I ask, that the pundits and press don't endorse this flawed strategy as successful, because at the heart Guiliani's plan was never a good one. If Guiliani does lose, his campaign will rightfully go down as one of the most confounding in American history.

Why?

I completely disagree with the Liberal position, articulated by Ignatieff, as it relates to the Manley panel. Why are the Liberals giving this Harper construct validity?:

Ignatieff hinted that the Liberals might fine-tune their own policy in light of recommendations, expected Tuesday, from a panel headed by Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister appointed by the Conservative government to study the mission.

"My sense is Manley is not in the status-quo business," Ignatieff said. "My sense is Manley is very critical of how the government has managed the mission. He will, I think, say things that suggest we need to refocus the mission, manage it better, work with our allies to make sure we're getting some results there."

..."I think I'm going to take Manley seriously.

To be fair, obviously the Liberals are privy to some of the Manley conclusions, particularly portions that criticize the Harper government. However, while the Liberals may score some political points, I don't agree that they should endorse the process, which was flawed from the onset. I certainly don't think the Liberals should take their policy cues from a panel, who's sole purpose was to neutralize the issue for Harper.

I suppose I pre-judge, in not waiting to see the final recommendations. The Liberals may be calculating that the report can be used for advantage. That said, I've never taken Manley "seriously", nor has the official party line until now, so this type of validation seems like a departure. There's a difference between policy pragmatism and endorsing an uneven process, hatched, not because of the desire for genuine debate, but electoral prospects.