Defining "Victory" in Pennsylvania

If you listen to Obama supporters, Clinton has to win by a massive amount to carry on, while her supporters say a small victory is good enough. Most of that spin is largely irrelevant, all that matters is the game of expectations as it relates to the media. Overall, it would appear the media frame is Clinton must win by at least 8-10% to claim "victory"- that would be enough to give her campaign oxygen, raise further doubts about Obama and keep the superdelegates at bay. Anything less and there will probably be great pressure on Clinton to concede.

At the moment, the polling averages give Clinton about a 6% lead, which sets the stage for an interesting night. However, the two most recent polls bring some promising signs for Clinton. An American Research Group poll, finished last night puts the race at:

Clinton 54%
Obama 41%

A caution, ARG's track record has been spotty this primary season.

Speaking of "spotty", Zogby is conducting nightly rolling polls for Pennsylvania, and the results show movement for Clinton. Tonight's poll has Clinton leading by 6 points, up from 3% the night prior. What seems particularly good for Clinton, the last day of polling:

John Zogby: “A big one-day of polling for Clinton. If a 10-point victory is the pundit-driven threshold she needs on Tuesday, it looks like she can do it. This does not look like a one-day anomaly – undecideds dropped to only 5% in this latest single day of polling, and they are breaking Clinton’s way. As I suggested yesterday, if white and Catholic voters, who still are the biggest portion of undecideds, actually vote, Clinton will have her double-digit victory. Just today alone, she polled 53% to Obama’s 38%.

For Obama supporters, there is the Mason-Dixon poll, which stopped polling on Friday. That well respected outfit only gives Clinton a 5% lead, with 8% still undecided.

I would argue that an 8% margin is enough for Clinton to claim victory. While that means little in the way of a delegate dent, it still represents a solid result, in another key state, within the environment of Obama supposedly "unstoppable". I accept the lower margin, primarily because Obama has brought out all the stops in Pennsylvania, he has campaigned very hard, established an impressive ground game, not to mention outspending Clinton on ads a full 3-4 times(incredibly important in a big state).

Bernier Almost Kills Major General Louis MacKenzie

Conservative apologists have tried to mimimize the extent of Bernier's latest gaffe, and in so doing reveal their lack of understanding when it comes to diplomacy. This quote, from former Conservative candidate Major General Louis MacKenzie, pretty much puts any debate to an end:

"It was the biggest cockup diplomatically in my lifetime that's for sure. I almost drove off the road when I heard it being reported over the radio. All the effort, all the negotiations, all the working together with the Governor of Kandahar, including a number of projects with the provincial reconstruction team, was impacted by this comment. I don't know maybe he got his talking points mixed up, but it really was an unforgivable error".

Two hands on the wheel at all times Lou, the Conservative road is full of potholes.

Earth To Conservative Party

When I read these lines of attacks on the Conservative Party website, it furthers my view that most of the supposed strategic prowess the Conservatives enjoy is more media construct, than practical application. The Conservative site is juvenile at the best of times, but the latest attack on Dion's environmental record is just plain stupid:

The facts:

In December 2005, environmental groups awarded the Liberal government with the “Fossil of the Day” award at the Montreal conference that was being chaired by Stephane Dion (ECO, December 2, 2005, and ECO, December 3, 2005)

The Liberal government that Dion was a part of received 89 Fossil of the Day awards from 1999-2005, second only to the U.S. and a head of Saudi Arabia. (http://www.fossil-of-the-day.org)

The Conservatives detail the Liberal record, using the fossil statistics (their link doesn't work, but let's take their word on it). What I find amazing, that this response welcomes the easy retort, and that is pointing to the Conservatives unprecedented haul of fossil awards. The Liberals received 89 in six years? Well, the Conservatives received 25 awards in just 12 days. Beat that Liberals! The Liberals were second, only to the United States? Well, the Conservatives had no peer in Bali, securing the most first's, and even with the Americans overall. Take that Dion! You're no John Baird my friend.

If you have the most abysmal record on a particular measure, the last thing you do is draw attention to it, in trying to discredit your opposition. You mention other things, the usual Baird spin, try to make your point. You don't highlight your weakness, and invite the unfavorable comparison. The Liberals were bad, but somehow we are even worse, is hardly a persuasive argument. Good one brainiacs, clearly a keeper for an election campaign.

Harper "Ready To Go To The Polls"?

Harper was out yesterday, defending his immigration reforms, with the inference that the government is ready to go to the polls over the issue:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose an important immigrant business audience in Toronto last night to launch a vigorous counterattack against criticism from ethnic communities of his government's proposed immigration policy changes.

His Conservative government is prepared to go to the polls over the proposals, Harper added.

"Frankly, this is becoming a crisis. And, if we do not fix this, the long-term performance of our economy will be affected."

Dion is already on record saying the Liberals will vote against (how many MP's seems to be an open question), if the reforms aren't altered. I think it is important to remember, that as this process moves forward, the Liberals will offer a series of amendments to the proposed reforms. The government have said they will reject any changes to their legislation. The end result of all this, the Conservatives will reject the Liberal vision on immigration reform.

My point, the Liberals will have a counter to present to Canadians in an election. This means Harper's cries of "crisis" (interesting that characterization given their manufactured crisis on refugees claimants), his attempt to frame their proposals as necessary, will be undercut by a Liberal counter. The Liberals can acknowledge the same "crisis", but offer a more compelling solution. This debate will not be a situation where the Conservatives sound the alarm, and the Liberals reject any action. No, it will be a flawed plan presented, which was altered, with possible support from other parties, and an alternative presented. The Liberals take the Conservative plan and try to "improve" it.

The Conservatives are cornered, in not accepting any amendments. There isn't an immigration expert alive that believes the expenditure allotted by the Conservatives is anywhere near sufficient to deal with the problem. The Liberals have the opportunity to present something which can address the same issues, but in a way that will be effective, a plan that can win support of those in the know.

Harper also stands to lose, because their proposal puts considerable power in the hands of the Minister, a situation many aren't comfortable with, particular when it involves this Conservative government. If the Liberals offer certain "checks" to unilateral decision making, a more comprehensive mechanism to fast forward certain claimants, again they can out-flank the Conservatives, offer a more acceptable remedy.

The final point, a matter of credibility. You will have an election with one plan, countered by another, with the added caveat of how said plan came to be. The Conservatives will argue this, the Liberals that, it will be a confusing storyline to sift through. The kicker for the Liberals, how these reforms came to be, which suggests reasonable suspicion. Canadians may lack a sophistication of parliamentary manoeuvres, but I think everybody can understand the strange circumstance of putting fundamental immigration reform into a budget bill, at the last minute. There is a superficial "trying to pull a fast one" aspect here, which will be echoed by the other opposition parties. Dion has the added advantage of presenting the counter as thoughtful, while painting the Conservatives with unclear motivations. If their proposals are so urgently needed, so sound, then why the lack of consultation, why the truncated process?

This looming debate in a election will hardly be framed as Harper assumes, a take it or leave it proposition. It is not one party trying to do something, where other parties offer nothing. In fact, it will be a Conservative proposal rejected, with an alternative that attempts to improve the flawed solution. In the end, a battle of ideas, ground which may be relatively firm for the Liberals.

Bringing Them Down On Immigration

Scott posts on Hebert's election timing column, cautioning the Liberals against a quick vote. I wanted to expand on this point, which is important:

I keep saying this: bringing down the government on one particular issue doesn’t mean that it will be the only issue talked about for a 6 week election campaign.

That is a crucial argument to remember, when people wonder about the logic of forcing an election over immigration reform. The Liberals have already framed their stance as accumulative, the "markers" approach, which I think easily translates into a campaign. Yes, by bringing down the government on immigration, you effectively make it a central talking point, it is the catalyst, but it doesn't mean a campaign revolves around this one issue.

First off, the government is more likely to want their campaign to revolve around their supposed "achievements". I suspect the main lines of attack will revolve around leadership, a concerted effort to paint Dion as fiscally irresponsible. In other words, I don't see how a protracted debate over immigration plays to the Conservatives preferred arguments. Hebert mentions Quebec, but I don't see how the Liberals are mortally wounded, given their remaining base, in fact it could shore up things, or at least make it all a wash.

If the Liberals take down the government over immigration, I think it will be rightly framed as the final straw, a tipping point in ending this long minority reign. Couple that fact, with a Liberal Party platform finally released, which is sure to hold a few surprises, some bold measures, and immigration is probably on the back burner by the end of the first week.

If Dion is serious about a carbon tax, then the environment will rear it's head as the defining issue. The idea is fresh in the minds of British Columbians, Quebecers are largely on board, it will make for an interesting debate in Ontario, and the Conservatives will rally their base, who are strongly opposed. In other words, the environment will become the lightning rod, a combination of voter interest, regional considerations, stark contrast, not to mention all the parties willing to engage. If the Liberals release their environmental platform during the election, an issue like immigration will fall off the radar, but it will have served it's purpose, demonstrating to certain groups that the Liberal tradition remains.

In Ontario, you already have Liberal buttons, which say "My Canada Includes Ontario", does anyone doubt that the provincial Liberals and the federal party won't do everything in their power to make Flaherty, the economy, manufacturing, working together, a central thesis in a campaign? Does anyone seriously think we will all be consumed with the immigration reforms?

I just don't see an environment where the country is plunged into a debate on immigration, at least not in a way that dominates this campaign. I also don't buy into the idea that voters would "punish" anyone for forcing an election, after all this minority already has historic distinction for longevity. So long as the Liberals properly characterize their vote against, as more the absence of proper consultation, hiding these changes in a suspicious way, I don't see the negative fallout. A vote against is a matter of principle, woven within the greater theme that the Liberals have decided it's time for an election, based on a host of considerations. I suspect the media will accept that rationale, because after all they have been consumed with election speculation for months, waiting on any trigger.

An election campaign is very organic, there are bound to be twists nobody can predict. To base apprehension for an election on the premise that immigration isn't "the" issue for the Liberals to bring them down seems to rely on unnecessary tunnel vision. With all the points of distinction, a platform everyone has desperately wanted to see, a government less than inclined to fight on this ground exclusively, other issues which continually show themselves as important in the public consciousness, I think the trigger, in this case, is mostly secondary.

"This Is Not For Publication?"

You can almost smell the stench, every time you listen to it.

Tactical Aptitude

The Harper government is generally acknowledged as pretty shrewd, tactically proficient, the media tends to fawn over their supposed "chess" play, sometimes attaching much more than is really there, but that comes with reputation. I've never really bought into that characterization, there are volumes of examples to suggest otherwise, plenty of empirical evidence to show little in the way of actual results, apart from the bluster. Capable sure, but hardly the stuff of grandmasters, hardly something to fear, as many gifts given as deft manoeuvers.

What is quietly going unnoticed here, in amongst all the controversy, the Liberals are demonstrating their own tactical prowess at the moment. Prior to Question Period today, news linked to reporters that the Liberals would re-focus on Cadman, when really it was the same emphasis as every other day. Dryden asks his question, gets no response, but it lingers and it connects nicely with the other scandals, the other themes in committee. In presenting a false new focus, it generated some discussion with the media, it allowed them to put it into context.

That was sharp, but what was really shrewd, having Rae come out of nowhere and demand Bernier resign. Bernier actually resigning is meaningless, but the broadside received attention, put some oxygen into the theme that this government is failing on foreign policy. Rae, positioned as the worldy sage, operates the B stage, another line of attack, while the RCMP raid swirls. Easy to forget everything else, and solely focus on the big story for the week, surely enough politically. However, interesting to watch the Liberals multi-task, driving the news, using different lines.

Good stuff.

UPDATE

A similar view.

Liberals Demand Bernier Resign

The Liberal Party is demanding that Maxime Bernier resign as Minister of Foreign Affairs:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae called today for Bernier to be fired, describing him as incompetent and irresponsible.

And the NDP put a motion before a Commons committee demanding the minister appear to explain why he publicly called for the removal of the governor of Kandahar.

Bernier ended his visit to the war-torn country on Monday by effectively calling for the removal of Asadullah Khalid, linking him to the rampant corruption that plagues the impoverished region.

He was quickly forced to issue a "clarification'' after the Afghan government expressed concern about foreign interference in its internal affairs.

Rae says it's just the latest in a series of embarrassing gaffes by Bernier.

In an unusual move, Rae went further, offering up a possible replacement:



At first blush, it would appear a marginal upgrade.

Summer Of Love?

It would seem those that don't want an election, see the summer break as an opportunity to boost Dion's fortunes:

Stéphane Dion wants to spend the summer selling the idea of a national carbon tax on fuels that damage the environment. His top advisors are telling him that he still has work to do convincing Canadians to buy what he is selling and the summer would give him time to craft a campaign narrative.

Yes, the summer barbeque circuit, didn't we hear the exact same thing last year?? Seriously, last spring, all the talk was about getting Dion out there, touring the country, establishing a dialogue with Canadians. A new wrinkle if this summer brings some policy, but basically the same theme.

The summer break is traditionally very hard for opposition leaders. The public glare of parliament gone, people distracted by vacation and such, nobody really paying attention, it's tough to get any press, nevermind establish a narrative. Concurrent with that struggle, the government is free of scrutiny, able to make the odd announcement, it really is their best season. With all that in mind, I'm hard pressed to see the summer break as savior, an environment that will improve our fortunes.

I would argue that the summer brings more risk than reward, as the recent problems of the government fade, we allow them the lion's share of coverage, all of it scripted. Quiet is the government's best friend, and I fully expect a LONG summer break, similar to last year. Dion can tour the country, but he doesn't do so alone, and he operates in a controlled environment.

It sounds great, bide our time, allow Dion to get out there and sell the Liberal vision. However, if history is our guide, Dion will mostly be forgotten in the summer, it will really amount to nothing. Nobody disputes that the government tends to get more negative coverage when parliament sits, nor does anybody dispute the challenges for the opposition during the summer break- those two realities make the summer of love scheme more wishful thinking, than sound strategy. Anything could happen, but I'm willing to bet things don't look any better, possibly worse, than they do at this exact moment, come the fall. The summer is rarely the friend of the opposition, certainly not the season to sell a vision, your audience is entirely distracted.

Liberals Ahead

New Harris-Decima poll out, which has the Liberals statistically ahead, for the first time since just after the Liberal leadership convention:

April 10-13:

Liberals 33%
Cons 30%
NDP 16%
Greens 11%

Ontario (3 week average)

Liberals 40%
Cons 32%
NDP 13%
Greens 13%

Decima's Bruce Anderson:

"In Ontario, we now have a situation, where the Liberals have a massive lead in the 416, a pretty good lead in the 905, a 5-6% lead in the 519 southwestern Ontario region. They only trail the Conservatives in eastern Ontario".

If these provincial regional numbers were to hold, we would see a healthy Liberal seat gain in Ontario. As an aside, did anyone hear about the new Liberal buttons- "My Canada Includes Ontario". Brilliant :)

Quebec (3 week average):

Bloc 37%
Liberals 22%
Conservatives 21%
NDP 10%
Greens 8%

Pretty consistent results, which suggests the recent infighting hasn't hurt too badly.

The most intriguing story is the British Columbia results. While the margin of error is 5.1%, Anderson offers an interesting development:

Liberals 35%
Cons 26%
NDP 23%
Greens 15%

"Each of the last three weeks, we have had the Liberals ahead of the other parties in B.C., which hasn't happened before."

More bad news for the Conservatives:

Urban voters:

Liberals 35%
Conservatives 28%
NDP 15%
Greens 12%

"In 2006, around the time of the election, we measured urban voters as a 5% advantage for the Conservatives. It had always been a tough situation for the Conservatives, but they overcame that. In the election they won by 5%, now they trail by 7%, a pretty important swing."

Hard to find a silver lining for Conservatives, they are also falling further behind with women voters, especially older women, who tend to show up at the polls moreso than other demographics.

I see a window here, the trends are pretty firm, with all the pollsters. I would argue we are now at Conservative bottom, nobody should expect the numbers to drop below 30%. The Liberals still have room for expansion, if you subscribe to the notion that soft Green support is more likely to move to the Liberals, IF anywhere, should an appealing case be made.

Does it get any better than this??

That's The Best You Can Do?

What's with Conservatives, both the leadership and the minions- any negative coverage, any criticism from any organization, all part of some Liberal conspiracy? When an environmental group criticizes the government's policies, we are presented with "well we know they support the Liberals". When any columnist pens a negative piece, "it's the Liberal media at it again". When the Conservative Party breaks the law, the only thing that matters, Elections Canada is in co hoots with the Liberals. Predictable, and entirely lame:

The bigger concern was that media cameras were present Tuesday when the Mounties were entering and leaving the party's offices, said Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

"I do find it odd, when I look at a photograph this morning and I see someone knocking on the door with cameras, with news cameras present," Flaherty said as he left a Conservative caucus meeting on Parliament Hill.

Yes Jim, the "bigger concern" isn't the raid itself, the legal implications, the stench of scandal, no it's the cameras. Okay.

More:

Ottawa-area Conservative Pierre Poilievre took it further, accusing Elections Canada of offering the Liberal party front-row seats to watch the raid unfold.

"Somebody should ask who in Elections Canada invited the Liberal party to make a home video out of the visit to our headquarters," he said.

Or, somebody should ask why Elections Canada was forced to ask the RCMP to intervene, why they felt it necessary to get a search warrant? That's a good question, maybe even more relevant that why the Liberals witnessed the sorry display.

The accusation doesn't deserve merit, but Kady shoots it full of holes here. This line of defence is akin to the Cadman scandal, where all the Tories could do was infer the tape had been doctored. When you have nothing substantive in defence, the only recourse is too attempt to blur the lines, offering juvenile doubt, try and smear the messenger.

It's a sad day, when the Conservatives try to sully Elections Canada, question their independence, make it appear to be a partisan conspiracy. Conservative supporters should be embarrassed, that their leadership forever employs the scorched earth policy, when reasonable questions are asked. In trying to discredit, they undermine confidence in our institutions, institutions which have a job to do, their independence above reproach.

Yes, what were the Liberals doing there, is Elections Canada in bed with the opposition? Canadians demand answers. That't the best you can do? Pathetic.

Why It Matters

I saw this post on Liblogs, lamenting the frenzy of "fellow" Libloggers jumping all over the RCMP raid:

Scream, foam at the mouth and point the finger of blame at the Tories all you like my Liberal friends. In the real world, Tories and Liberals smell pretty much the same.

That sentiment misses the point, but at the same time it nails it, if that is possible. All that matters, from my point of view, isn't scoring partisan points, but exposing these frauds for what they are, bringing them down to the level of the rest of us.

These Conservatives rode into Ottawa as the most sanctimonious, moral elitists this country has ever seen. Their entire campaign, or campaigns as the case may be, was predicated on this lofty notion of transparency, accountability, trust, honesty, a different breed, HOLIER THAN THOU. The sentiment trickled down to the supporters, so righteous in their tsk tsk, looking down on the government of the day, painting everyone with their white brush of purity.

When they came to office, what was their signature issue? Cleaning up government, campaigns, presenting Canadians with values, so lacking in those dirty Liberals. And, therein lies my joy, because it was always a lie, always destined to reveal hypocrisy, because it forgot a simple fact- we are all human. The Conservatives like to think they operate on a different plain, so squeaky clean, so above it all. I love watching them fall, because they were so deluded to place themselves in the rare air.

So, yes, in the end, voters will probably conclude that they are all corrupt, they "smell pretty much the same". But really, that's all I wanted anyways, the white knights in the muck, back on the ground, living amongst the "others". Eat the crow, Conservatives and their supporters, you're judgemental predisposition shattered. That is why these scandals matter, Canadians see the naked hypocrisy, the cheap rhetoric for what it always was, a perch of self-deluded arrogance. Enjoy the fall- popcorn anyone!

"It's unclear why Elections Canada undertook this action today"

The Prime Minister doesn't understand, so let's cut through the fog for him- poor guy. Generally, when your office is raided by the RCMP, in connection with an investigation, it usually means that you have been stonewalling, and this was the last resort to acquire information. See, Elections Canada wouldn't ask for the raid, if they felt you had been honest, as you claim. If you really were "forthcoming in handing over all relevant documents", then there isn't really a need for a raid. Seems sort of clear, dare I say logical, doesn't it? I'm sure Canadians understand.

The best part about the RCMP raid, it brings an issue which never really capitivated the public to the fore. The in and out scandal is complicated, in many respects it had fallen off the radar. However, nothing says juicy like the RCMP raiding your party headquarters. So much for trying to slip this one under the rug.

I really feel bad for Van Loan, because he has lost his "tyranny of the majority" argument, as it relates to the committee chaos. Pretty simple math, two of the committee's in limbo are being obstructed, in matters to do with potential illegal activities by Conservatives. This raid brings the focus back to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, and it supports the notion that the Conservatives are stonewalling for partisan purposes. Good luck with those lame talking points now Pete.

What goes around, comes around.

Flaherty: Before And After

The final polling outfit, yet to do a poll since Flaherty's assault on Ontario has weighed in, offering further confirmation of the damage:

"Flaherty's anti-Ontario comments appear to have struck a sour note, stripping the Harper Conservatives of support ":

The Strategic Counsel survey, conducted April 10-13, found that 36 per cent of voters would support the Tories if an election were held today, compared with 30 per cent who would back the Liberals. Support for the NDP has dropped three points from 2006, to 15 per cent... while the Greens have the support of 10 per cent of Canadians, double their election level.

The last Strategic Counsel poll had the Conservatives with a 12 point lead over the Liberals, it is now down to 6, despite an uptick in support in Quebec. The difference:

Ontario voters currently prefer the Liberals over the Tories by 42 per cent to 33 per cent, a jump of eight points for the Liberals from one month ago. NDP 14%, Greens 12%.

The last SC poll, done in mid-February, showed the Conservatives with momentum in Ontario, a fact mirrored by some of the other polling companies:

Cons 42%
Libs 34%
Greens 13%
NDP 11%

A massive 17 point swing, before and after, well outside of any recent vacillation. In this poll, you see a direct co-relation with voters swinging back to the Liberals en masse, at the Conservatives expense. Anyone who questions whether this change lies at the feet of Flaherty needs to give their head a shake. Every poll has shown the same trend, and it reaffirms the characterization that this strategy of attacking Ontario represents the biggest political blunder of this government.

In Quebec, the Conservatives have seen an uptick in support. The pollster attributes this to the Liberals recent troubles, but most of the gain seems to come at the Bloc's expense:

Bloc 36%
Cons 27%
Libs 20%
Greens 10%
NDP 7%

The last SC poll had the Bloc 40%, Cons 22%, Libs 19%, Greens 14%, NDP 5%. No Liberal erosion, but bottom tends to be firm ground.

Overall, another good trend for the Liberals, the Conservatives big lead evaporated. SC is now somewhat in line with other outfits, or at the least, no longer an outlier. One fact is indisputable, the Conservatives are at a low mark in Ontario, the Liberals riding high, which makes an election more attractive, all things considered.

Thin Bench

Has there ever been a Minister of Foreign Affairs more clearly in over his head than Maximum "damage" Bernier? The guy has been a train wreck from the get go, such a lightweight on the international stage, he really is a national embarrassment. You know what, one can hardly blame Harper for the tight leash routine, most of these people are dangerous when left to freelance.

Travers was on television today, discussing Bernier's major gaffe, and he basically said he was in the post purely for partisan purposes. A Quebecer, given a senior post, someone who could sell Afghanistan to a sceptical province. And, therein lies the problem with the Harper government, putting politics before reason, putting a mostly incoherent smuck, with no experience, into one of the most important and vital portfolio's in the government.

I'm sure everyone has noticed that MacKay takes many questions, and speaks outside of his role as Minister of Defence, which I've always interpreted as necessary to mask Bernier's poor presence(MacKay looks like Lester Pearson beside this cupcake) That said, this is the guy that represents Canada on the international stage, meets with people who intellectually tower over him, his presence reflects poorly on an entire nation. I'm almost willing to guarantee that at least one or two foreign delegations have left a meeting with Bernier wondering "is this the best Canada has to offer?".

Bernier shouldn't be allowed to travel abroad, he should be the Minister of Domestic Foreign Affairs. Bernier shouldn't be put on a shorter leash, frankly he should be put down. What a disaster.

Clinton Takes A Shot

Hillary Clinton, campaigning in Pennsylvania, says yes when offered a shot of a fine Canadian whiskey Crown Royal:




Predictably, Obama wasn't impressed:

After first saying too many candidates are only giving voters "rhetoric," the Illinois senator said, "They'll promise you anything. They'll even give you a long list of proposals. They'll even come around with TV crews in tow and throw back a shot and a beer."

June Anyone?

A Hill Times article, which eludes to a possible June election. Let's hope so:

Last week, at a quasi-emergency meeting of the Liberal shadow Cabinet, the need to go to the polls as soon as possible was debated, recognized, and there was a general consensus that the Conservative immigration reform plan would be the trigger. According to Liberal sources, Canadians should go to the polls in June. This seems to be the plan.

If the Liberal plan holds—and the "if" is necessary considering the twists of the last few months—the final vote against the budget will take place during the first half of May and Canadians would go to the polls in June.

Pretty much sourced from the same meeting of the Liberal shadow cabinet, as earlier reported, but the secondary confirmation adds weight.

One of the angles for an election, that I haven't really discussed, revolves around Dion's hold on the leadership. If, the Liberals continue to abstain, and we go into the summer break without an election, one has to wonder if Dion will face fresh attacks. There is already talk of the Conservatives pulling the same strategy as last summer, proroguing Parliament, MP's coming back mid-fall. With a potential long gap, that could mean Parliament reconvenes, with the Liberal convention in December looming. While there is no leadership vote planned, the event could still be risky for Dion politically. Fast forward to the late fall, and the prospects of the October 2009 mandated election seem plausible. Would that reality, a perceived pause, give the anti-Dion crowd some wind to argue for replacement?

The article I linked, includes some outlandish quotes from the usual anonymous Liberal:

"Of course the best for the Liberals," a party strategist told The Hill Times last week, "would be the removal of Dion before the vote and, even if this development is highly unlikely, it doesn't mean that some Liberals have completely given up their hopes."

I'm not putting any stock into these quotes, the thoughts of moving against Dion before a potential June election are so ridiculous that you have to wonder about the source. That said, a long summer break, with the convention starting to surface on the horizon, provides idle minds with a potential game plan.

I guess the question, can Dion afford to wait for an election? Does a delay bring risk, when you are dealing with an objectively demoralized base, scant fundraising, a general malaise?

How To Close The Leadership Gap?

Nothing particularly new in the results of a Segma poll for La Presse, in that Dion falls well behind on leadership, in fact he is a drag on Liberal party support. The question was asked, how would voter intention change if the various party leaders left? For the Conservatives, their support would drop a full 6 points if they replaced Harper. The NDP support would drop another 3 points in Layton was replaced. The Liberal support is the anomaly, our numbers would rise 3 points if Dion wasn't the leader. When you factor in the reality that those voters come from other parties, it represents a potential 6 point swing without Dion at the helm.

The pollster describes it as "normal" for a leader to boost his/her party's support, because afterall they are the face, the figurehead, personal identification, compared with the unknown, the numbers suffer. If you would expect the face to improve fortunes, relative to nobody, it makes the gap for Dion all the more pronounced, all the more worrisome.

These type of findings confirm the obvious, the Liberal brand is keeping the party competitive, but Dion is a weak spot, something which needs to be dealt with, if the party stands a chance, in a campaign where leadership is key. The question then becomes, how do the Liberals close the leadership gap?

If you had to isolate Dion's problem to one word, it would be perceived "weakness". IMHO, that fact is indisputable, that is the core negative quality. Dion must present strength to the public, convey the message that he isn't a wimp, look Prime Ministerial. It is true that opposition leaders generally face leadership challenges, but I don't think this historical fact should be used for comfort, a condition outside of our own doing. The number one priority for the Liberals moving forward, do everything in their power to improve Dion's personal fortunes.

On the broken record front, how does the current strategy of cowering and using soft rhetoric to justify, improve or hurt Dion on the "weakness" front? How does this approach translate on to Dion personally? In my mind, the answer is clear, this strategy reinforces the already held notion, it cements the key negative impression. What is happening, Dion is further defined as weak, and this reality will increase the gradient moving forward, the "weakness" hill becomes steeper. We give the meme anecedotal evidence, we feed the achilles heel. If that doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster, I'm not sure what does.

I'm of the belief that lasting damage has already occured, and this may partially explain results like the above. In some ways, we could be past the point of no return, a leader so weakened, prematurely defined, that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that the Liberals will lose. The fear of loss, creates a situation, where that loss is guaranteed. We are nervous about the "weakness", when in fact, we have contributed to the reality through our own strategy. Strange.

Late To The Party

I'm sure everyone has already digested the latest Nanos poll, but I have a few thoughts on these results. I also have a few comments on people misinterpreting these numbers, as some justification for the Liberal current strategy.

The national numbers are good news for the Liberals, up 3, but the Conservatives are up 5, from the last Nanos poll. The Liberals owe their bounce to Ontario, the Conservatives well up in the "West". It would appear both gain, in different regions, at the expense of the NDP.

Anyone who argued that the by-elections results weren't bad news for the NDP, faces a sobering reality in these numbers. People have gravitated back to the main parties, and the NDP seems to be fighting a "relevance" perception.

In addition, the erosion of the NDP in Ontario could be directly related to the Flaherty-McGuinty feud. This poll is further evidence that the Flaherty assault represents the biggest political "boner" for the Conservatives in recent memory (has anyone seen Jim, seems to have disappeared?). There were two players in this fight, the Liberals and the Conservatives, the NDP choose to take some misguided highroad, taking no sides, implicating both, arguing that it was all counter-productive. The failure of people like Hampton to champion his province, and try to paint the NDP as outside of political wrangling, essentially made the NDP irrelevant. People in Ontario overwhelming saw the "fight" as mostly one-sided, correctly viewed the problem originating in Ottawa, McGuinty merely defending. The failure of the NDP to acknowledge that reality, try to paint both in the wrong, I think a tactical error. When push came to shove, there was only one party fighting Flaherty's dissing of Ontario, and that was the Liberal Party. To a great extent, the federal Liberals owe much of the gain in Ontario to their provincial counterparts. People rallied to the Liberals, as the safe bastion, the only alternative to replace a perceived anti-Ontario government. The by-election results, and an absence from the fed-pro argument, has hurt the NDP in Ontario.

What I'm not a big fan of, people viewing these results, and extrapolating that the media narrative is irrelevant, the Liberals aren't being hurt by abstaining. I believe you have to view all the elements working concurrently, meaning, the Liberal gain in Ontario is more reaction to the Conservatives, than it is some endorsement of our posture. Take Ontario out of the equation, and the Liberals would actually be down nationally, even with this, the Conservatives actually fared better in this poll, compared with Nanos last offering. I immediately referred to Flaherty as "the gift that keeps on giving", and that's what he was, don't let arrogance assume we benefited because of our message. In times of a threat, people return to what they are most comfortable with, in Ontario, this has been the Liberals for the last 15 years.

These results don't mean "we don't look bad", they aren't the comfort blanket of denial, and the biggest danger, they are used to justify. When I've argued that we should force an election now, I've repeatedly used the Ontario numbers to calm the fears that we will lose. Hopefully, instead of using these results to continue on in the delusion that nobody notices, the media has it wrong, things are good, they will bring less "nervousness" about bringing this government down.

Here's your window, Nanos confirmed it, use it or lose it.

Thin Ranks

This is the guy the Conservatives pick as their ethnic outreach "pointman", the tsar of broadening appeal, this is his sensibility?:

In the eight-year-old audio recording, Calgary MP and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity Jason Kenney suggests members of an ethnic minority will use "the race card" to win arguments.

On the call, Kenney agrees it would be a problem and asks for more information: "Now, this notion that there's somebody tied to the Heritage Front on the executive. How do we know that and how do we know that this isn't overheated Sikhs using the race card, which they so often do when their credentials are being questioned?"

"The Chinese community is very different from the Indo-Canadian community. The Chinese community are much more objective. No one can force them, or lure them, or cheat them into signing a membership form."

What a sophisticated understanding, approaching ethnic groups as monoliths, heaping negative connotations on to an entire community. This is your bridge builder? Wow, I'm at a complete loss why you haven't made any headway.

Put A Sock In It

I think the Liberals should vote against the Conservative immigration reforms and force an election. I think taking a pass on this key issue amounts to political suicide, and will bring lasting damage to the Liberal brand. I also think Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi should shut his big yapper:

The Harper government survived a potential election-triggering vote on its controversial immigration bill Wednesday after Liberals voted with the government. But at least one Liberal MP is threatening to break ranks unless the party takes a stand soon against the bill.

But Liberal MP Andrew Telegdi, who represents the Ontario riding of Kitchener-Waterloo, said Wednesday he will vote against the bill when it comes up for third reading in the House of Commons, no matter what position his party takes.

"They can't move my seat any further back, can they?" Telegdi said in an interview, referring to his status as a backbench MP and any repercussions he might face for breaking party ranks. "It's a horrible bill."

First off, why exactly are you going public after first reading, when you know this issue is far from resolved? Telegdi sounds the alarm bells in the middle of the first act, strange and stupid all at once. Telegdi, have you heard of a thing called closed doored caucus meetings? If you're trying to send a message, about all you achieve is projecting dissent, when we need it least. Spouting off, at this time, when there are plenty of signals that a "stand" looms, just demonstrates why you are on the backbench. Put a sock in it.

The Liberal Election Dance

Plenty of new signals that an election is in the offing, the Liberals prepared to bring the government down. Duffy started his broadcast with details of a "secret" shadow cabinet meeting, where it was decided that the government would fall:

"Sources say, that the Liberal shadow cabinet has decided, it is time to take a stand...And, the issue that they are going to force an election, none other than the government's immigration reforms"

Well, it was never a secret meeting, but I don't necessarily doubt the theme. On the other hand, you have Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc, present at the meeting, downplaying the election talk:

"My recollection of the meeting had nothing to do with lines in the sand...The idea that we are on the eve of a crisis, going to an election, simply isn't true."

On another front, Liberal MP Paul Szabo, when asked about an election:

Asked how much longer this amazing minority government of Stephen Harper's can continue to breathe, Szabo issued a sigh down the telephone line from the House of Commons this morning and said, "It's hitting a critical mass."

Szabo clearly articulates that we are at, or near, the point of no return. That sentiment tends to support my gut feeling that the mood is changing, Liberals becoming resigned to the fact that the current strategy isn't politically feasible.

What to make of the conflicting signals, coming from different sources? This is speculation on my part, but I think a decision has largely been made, the Liberals will bring the government down and there will be a June election. However, I see LeBlanc's comments as part of a concerted effort to downplay expectations, to not tip our hand, giving the Conservatives fair warning of what is to come. There is no political value in telegraphing your future moves, I suspect people have been told to be non-committal, hold the same line, nothing imminent, but something could happen. I think we are starting to see the Liberal election dance, one that will play out slowly over the next few weeks, full of conflicting signals, but ultimately leading to an election.

Where Do They Get Off?

The latest election threat, parliamentary committee "paralysis". Yes, that's right, the government is floating an election because committee's aren't doing the people's work. How noble and above board, a sure winner with Canadians.

The glaring incoherence, the naked hypocrisy, this pungent bullshit from a government who issued a 200 page "handbook" to all its committee chairs on ways to "filibuster, disrupt and shutdown". Sheer gall of the highest order, to chastise anyone, to claim a higher goal, when you invested so much energy in obstruction, you developed a mathematical formula for chaos. Good luck looking Canadians in the eye on this score, you have about as much credibility as a drunk lecturing on liver health.

Absurdity, thy name is Conservative.

Keep The Faith Kady

Kady O'Malley has done a fantastic job documenting the dysfunction that is the Justice Committee. Today, the routine of watching the Art Hanger obstruction show has Kady questioning her existence:

It's times like this, I've got to say, that can give even the most devoted committee blogger a bit of an existential crisis. Why am I here, standing outside a West Block committee room? What am I doing? What is my purpose on this planet? Is it really to wait for Art Hanger to storm out of a meeting and glare for the cameras? I guess so.

One of your purpose's is too give Canadians a interesting, witty, with just the right dash of sarcasm, perspective on the insanity that consumes our elected officials. Keep the faith Kady!

A great read.

UPDATE

Dominic LeBlanc's latest attempt to circumvent the Hanger filibuster. An opposition motion:

April 4, 2008 — Mr. LeBlanc (Beauséjour) — That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed to undertake a study to determine whether existing statute law, including Section 119 of the Criminal Code, currently serve as effective deterrents in preventing attempts to bribe Members of Parliament and that the said Committee report its findings to the House no later than May 16, 2008.

Inventing A Crisis

The Conservatives love to talk about claimant "backlogs", the need to fix the immigration system, to make it more responsive, morely timely. Well, since the Harper government took office, when it comes to refugee claimants and the appeal division, the record is either one of complete incompetence or deliberate sabotage. What a joke:

Canada's backlog of refugee claims is soaring to record numbers due to the government's failure to appoint sufficient adjudicators, the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board says.

The number of vacant positions has more than quintupled – to 58 from 10, according to the board. At the same time, the number of claims waiting to be heard has more than doubled, to 42,300 from just over 20,000.

In its recent report to Parliament, the board projects that the number of pending claims will reach 62,300 this year. That is more than triple the line-up when Harper took office and well beyond the previous record of 52,325 pending claims in 2002.

Moreover, the numbers are expected to escalate to 73,300 next year and to 84,300 the following year.

Immigration appeals:

The 37-member immigration appeal division, which hears appeals of criminal removal orders and rejected applications for family sponsorships, has 10 unfilled positions.

The board was taking an average of 11.7 months to process a refugee claim when the Harper government took office. But Goodman says the processing time is “significantly affected” by the lack of adjudicators and is now approaching 16.5 months.

It is absolutely staggering to have this government speak of backlogs, and all the other nonsense, when clearly they are part of the problem, not part of any solution. If these people are truly interested in streamlining the immigration process, then maybe Finlay can hand in her resignation.

This sounds about right:

Liberal immigration critic Maurizio Bevilacqua said he now suspects the government is deliberately trying to sabotage the board so it will have an excuse to scrap it and replace it with a “more restrictive, less generous” system for determining refugee claims.

“It's a natural flow of events. First you create a crisis, and then you solve the crisis,” he said.

The old Reform Party lives on, in various forms.

You Make Your Own Destiny

Don Martin's story on the Liberal conundrum is a good read, with the right framing. The choice to force an election basically comes to down to these two options:

But the Liberals must be wondering if, by supporting such an affront to a signature policy strength, they'll finally reach the point where the damage to their brand for its ongoing acquiescence is worse than the sobering challenge of facing the voters this spring.

The balance between cowering on immigration reform and the perception that the odds are long for election victory.

Where the mental math should shift towards an election, is when you consider the simple psychology. There is a sense amongst many Liberals that we aren't ready, we don't have the money, we lack "readiness". Well, according to our readiness guru, we are prepared now:

"I would say that on the organizational side, we can handle an election from this point on," Smith said. "I wouldn't have said that a few months ago, but I can say it now."

Smith brushes off any suggestion that money is an issue. Sure, he said, the Conservatives have a big war chest, but the Liberals aren't destitute and once an election is called, all parties can only spend up to the legal limits. In the last few campaigns, that figure has been around $18 million.

The money is there, the organization seems to be credible enough to fight a campaign, maybe everything isn't perfect, but an honest question considers the "ideal" to always be wanting.

The biggest factor, this sense or fear in our ranks, unease with the leader, worry about "war rooms" and the slick alternative. Weakness is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because in my mind you make your own destiny.

I'm not afraid of Stephen Harper, because it is abundantly clear that Canadians know him well, and they aren't particularly impressed or inspired, outside of the faithful. I'm not afraid of the Conservatives policies, because I'm confident our message will better articulate the view of mainstream Canada. I'm not afraid of a campaign, because it's not like the Liberal Party is chalk full of election amateurs, people with no "expertise". I'm not afraid of Dion in an election, it actually provides an opportunity to break out of this negative cycle, demonstrate to Canadians that he is a thoughtful leader, armed with solid ideas.

I guess what I'm saying, when you weigh the pros and cons, it all comes down to confidence. I'm not afraid, so when Harper sneaks immigration reform into a budget bill, I have no qualms calling his bluff. Sure there is risk, but that is a constant within the present circumstance. If we are waiting to see the Liberals up 6% in the polls, the coffers full, Dion viewed favorably, the Quebec house in order, that day will come long after the fall of 2009. When you weigh the risks of inaction, the potential to be a "laughing stock" with an election, the answer is easy, if you feel confident.

I don't see much of a choice anymore, a situation of diminishing returns moving forward. With that said, I would rather embrace a campaign, than be forced kicking and screaming, worried about the unknown. Martin says "no guts, no glory", lofty phrasing, but don't discount our ability to make it happen, we are not passive observers within a pre-determined script.

Don't Shoot The Messenger

Nik Nanos is the latest target of the Blogging Tories for the unheard of- giving Harper a piece of advice, based on his findings. The horror:

not tell us how we are supposed to react or predict how we will react ... and worse yet, tell an elected official how he should reacted based on polls that haven't been taken

This reaction, based on Nanos advising Harper to act swiftly on Lukiwski, to counter-act any potential damage to the Conservative brand:

"The prime minister needs to deal with this issue directly and try to put it behind him as soon as possible," Nanos said. "I think the prime minister has to personally say, 'I don't accept these comments, I repudiate them and it's not part of the party or the government or where its mind is at on a lot of these issues right now."

"If the Prime Minister is not forthright and he doesn't take things head on, I think the opposition is going to pounce. If he deals with this swiftly and directly, then there's not going to be a lot to poke at."

The Nanos recommendation is based on this:

Nanos said mainstream Canadians have been uncomfortable with social conservative attitudes on issues like sexual orientation.

Nanos also said that this issue wouldn't hurt the Conservatives with their base, but it could raise red flags with target voters. Our little BT friend, who immediately lumps Nanos into the communist conspiracy to usurp the Conservatives, fails to see the statements for what they are- good advice. All Nanos is saying here, based on his research, there is a latent unease with the Conservatives, this story feeds a negative impression, which could cost him with the electorate.

Funny, I don't remember any outrage when Nanos suggested possible Liberal erosion because of the abstaining strategy. No, then Nanos was bang on I'm sure, feel free to tell us "how we might react".

Anyways, in the end, Harper did nothing.

"Success Sells": Harper On Afghanistan

I don't agree with the argument that the Liberals have lost Afghanistan as an election issue, given our support for the "compromise" resolution. Moving forward, there are many unknowns, and there is still an argument to put to Canadian, concerning who they trust to move the mission towards re-construction and training, away from combat. Who is best suited to implement the spirit of the Afghanistan extension?

The Harper government has changed the language, in an effort to make the mission more palatable, but this seems more about perception than principle. Today, Harper unveiled some of his new, focus group tested, rhetoric. In his comments, Harper reveals that is more interesting that his primary concern is "selling" the mission:

One thing became crystal clear at last week's NATO summit in Bucharest: the old rhetoric about the fight against the Taliban being a blow against terrorism has been officially jettisoned.

In its place was an understanding that, in order to win the hearts and minds of Canadians, the political message would have to be phrased in terms that were less - well, less American.

The mantra almost from the time the Conservatives took office had beent that Canada had a responsibility to ensure Afghanistan didn't revert to the status of a failed state that could serve as a launching pad for terrorist attacks against North America.

That rang hollow in the ears of many Canadians, a fact that Harper has apparently come to appreciate.

"What we've actually found is: when you argue our self interest, that's actually less appealing to Canadian public opinion than the argument that we are actually concretely helping the Afghan people with their lives," he told a panel discussion of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, an American policy group, in Bucharest.

"Success sells, and the perception of failure is what causes problems."

There is honesty, and then there is telling Canadians what they want to hear, to curry their continued support. Liberals need to contrast the new language, that language with the past rhetoric, and how exactly the Conservatives got there. Remind Canadians, that the Conservatives used taxpayer dollars for focus groups, with the sole goal of finding ways to sell the mission. The Bushisms weren't dropped because the Conservatives don't believe the same, they were dropped because Canadians weren't "buying".

Afghanistan is a product, an issue that must be seen within the wider narrative of retail politics. There is plenty of evidence to weave a coherent story, which demonstrates that the words are cynical, the real priorities masked by cushy language, which ultimately leaves a question of trust. Moving forward, who do Canadians want as stewards of the mission? Which party really understand where the mission must go to be successful, and who is packaging Afghanistan to offset any political damage.

Afghanistan is still on the table, there are still contrasts available. Who should guide us for the next three years?

Flesh On Bone

Policy anyone? It's funny, because I sincerely believe the Liberals need to release some policy now, and resist the "wait for an election" rationale. That said, what is being floated in this article might be the type of policy best kept under wraps, especially when you consider the Conservatives preference for re-branding Liberal initiatives on the environment. All that aside, I like it:

Four Liberals interviewed by The Canadian Press confirmed the party is actively considering mortgage options to entice homeowners to go green.

One plan would allow homeowners to repay loans for retrofitting their homes through savings on heating and electricity costs. Certified inspectors would assess the home and recommended retrofits that would improve energy efficiency. The energy savings over time would then repay the retrofit loan.

Another idea is what Liberal environment critic David McGuinty calls a "location-efficient mortgage" that would let people who buy homes near public transit borrow mortgage money at a lower interest rate. That would encourage transit use and discourage driving.

The owner of an average four-bedroom home would have to invest between $3,000 and $7,000 to turn it into a green building, said Jonathan Westeinde, managing partner of Ottawa-based developer Windmill Development Group.

But he added the banks aren't necessarily confident homeowners will save enough money through retrofitting to pay back their loans.

That's where the green mortgage scheme comes in.

"Whatever those forecast savings are, and what the bank is moving outside its box on related to the mortgage, that portion would be guaranteed by the government," said Westeinde, who has spoken with the Liberals about their green mortgage plan.

"And what that becomes then is the tool that enables the market to get a bunch of products out. It doesn't require a whole bunch of non-recoverable grants by the government."

The article mentions that some smaller banks are already pursuing this angle, but the idea would surely move to mainstream if a Liberal government where to guarantee the loan. One of the biggest hurdles, for people who want to improve their efficiency, the high cost up front, which sometimes isn't feasible, even if there is a return long term. This initiative would eliminate that barrier, in many ways it becomes a no brainer, because ultimately you are better off.

This idea is the kind of policy that gets you behind your party, it defines the "new" Liberals. It also makes it a little easier to reach into the wallet, because I must say, the recent email asking to donate using Conservative immigration reforms as inspiration (give us money, so we can roll over and go into the fetal position) was hardly persuasive.

Thank-you, for throwing us a bone, even if Baird lifts it ;) A great idea.

Hip

Every so often, I visit the Conservative website, to see the latest juvenile manifestation of anti-Dion postings. On a sidenote, for the first time I can remember, there are actually as many pictures of Harper on the website, as there are photos of Dion- strange.

The Conservatives traditionally do poorly with younger voters. When you see their "outreach" on the website, it explains a lot. Here is the banner, a call to arms for Canadian youth:


Who chooses this photo for the frontpage of your website? Somebody actually made the decision that the look on this kid's face conveys the appropriate message? Are the Conservatives trying to court the braindead, nobody's home vote? Stunned and young? Come, join our team.

While You Were Waiting

There are two Liberal camps, the election hawks and doves, each has their own reasoning. Big City Lib offers the latest installment on why waiting for an election is the prudent route. I offer this post as the respectful counter.

The economic argument, that being a potential downturn will hurt the Conservatives, is credible, but it's also more wishful thinking, than sound strategy. The Canadian economy is not a monolith, everyone would concede that any downturn is largely a Ontario and Quebec equation. With that reality in mind, any potential harm to the Conservatives is confined to this region of Canada, other regions are in boom and show no signs of a pullback.

Let's look at these provinces, and see how exactly a potential recession would play out electorally. First off, in Quebec, nobody in their right minds think the Liberals have any real potential to "grow" in the short term, more likely the status quo would be seen as victory. Within this environment, to say an economic downturn would benefit the Liberals, isn't rooted in reality. While it could hurt the Conservatives, polling shows voters more likely to look elsewhere, by-passing the Liberals. The harsh truth, for many the Liberals are no longer the second option, and it is hard to see how the economy will bring back voters in droves. No, whatever happens with the economy, it is unlikely to raise Liberal prospects considerably in Quebec.

The premise really revolves around Ontario, a possible recession, that could do real harm to the Conservatives. Nevermind that this belief is a theoretical, a "maybe", a "could", nothing conrete or known, the belief also fails to look at the present circumstance. Last time I checked the Liberals were leading in Ontario, some polling actually has the Conservatives down to their core constituents. In other words, the Liberals are already in a good position in Ontario, the Conservatives unlikely to see much more erosion, if history is your guide. If anyone thinks the Conservatives fall below 30% in Ontario, then they are detached from reality, that's bottom. In the only region where the Conservatives can be hurt from the economy, their position is already tenious, the Liberals appear strong. Given this circumstance, the now, it is hard to see how waiting on the economy pays any dividends. In Ontario, the optics are good right now.

There is another major problem in looking to the economy for salvation. That strategy is a one-sided proposition, because it fails to factor the concurrent erosion of the Liberals. While the Conservatives could be harmed, it happens while the Liberals operate in this vicious cycle of perpetual weakness. Whatever potential gain is negated by cementing the theme that Dion is weak, the Liberals stand for nothing.

If one wonders why the media "picks" on the Liberals, much of it comes down to a lack of respect. There is no way for Dion to emerge as a strong leader, while he takes a pass on issues which are core principles for the Liberals. In many ways, this recent debate on immigration is seen as the litmus test. This issue is being framed in such a way, that if the Liberals take another pass, it will be the final straw, the narrative cemented. And, when you think about, that isn't necessarily unfair, given that when you think Liberal, historically, immigration is always part of the mix.

While we are waiting for the economy to tank, or some other silver bullet to bring us electoral bliss, we in fact ensure our defeat. Our inaction guarantees failure, it doesn't lead to "winning conditions", it prevents them. The argument of the doves, you don't go into an election you could lose is irrelevant, because this circumstance guarantees that possibility for eternity.

Two more articles today, detailing the Liberals problems. The Globe and Mail piece is particularly scathing, but there is one quote that should be heeded:

Influential Saskatchewan Liberal Tony Merchant is convinced that Mr. Dion will “wear well with the voters” once he is on television every night during an election campaign. Echoing Peter Russell, Mr. Merchant says Mr. Dion will be “liked by crowds.”

He says: “I regret the decision that has been made to hold off on an election. That's not really playing to Dion's strength – his passion over issues. The waiting hasn't been helpful to him.” As an opposition leader, Mr. Dion has to wait until an election is called before he can vend his issues to the public. Otherwise he won't get the media's attention.

Dion never gets traction until an election campaign. In fact, Dion's numbers continue to erode, borne out in the polls (from abysmal to unheard of), as we sit on our hands, waiting on maybe's. The only chance Dion has, the glare of an election campaign to make his case, the other path, a slow burn to oblivion.

Susan Delacourt in today's Toronto Star:

In an interview with the Star this week, Smith talked about election readiness. In his seasoned assessment, the Liberals are in okay shape in terms of logistics – money, planes, organization, platform.

"I would say that on the organizational side, we can handle an election from this point on," Smith said. "I wouldn't have said that a few months ago, but I can say it now."

Good to go, or good enough to go. But, we need a narrative:

"What everybody would concede is that the party is not ready, intellectually," said Herle. "What is the Liberal narrative in this election? What's the strategy to win an election? Without answering those questions, you can't settle on a platform, design advertising or lay out a tour plan."

Herle, then answers his own question:

"Stephen Harper is a very intelligent person, but he's very right-wing. If you look at the philosophical spectrum, he's probably as right-wing a leader as we've had in memory. And I'm not sure that a lot of Canadians understand that," Smith said. As well, "in living memory I've never seen anybody where things were run from the Prime Minister's Office so directly," he argued. "I mean, this is new. And to the extent that Canadians understand that, I don't think they relate to it."

There's your narrative.

If people want to lose an election, then I can't think of a better way than furthering the idea of weakness, alienating core groups, by taking a pass on this immigration reform. Don't blame the media, we provide the storyline with our inaction. Dion doesn't get any respect? Why should he really, all he does is abstain. When the Liberals ask six questions in QP, criticizing the Conservatives on this immigration reform, and then do nothing in the end, don't get angry when we read more and more on weakness. Is it fair? You know what, it probably is when you stand back. Nobody respects a wimp, nobody gravitates to inaction, nobody holds cowering in high regard. The only way to change the channel, is for Dion and the Liberals to take a stand, and get out there and make our case. Sitting on the sidelines is a recipe for failure, you never win. Patience shouldn't be confused with sealing your own fate over time.

Say It Ain't So

Long ago, I had a job working in Algonquin Park. Every night we had a ritual in camp, we'd start a fire and relax while the sun went down, sitting lakeside, everything became peaceful and calm. Amazing moments. Anyone who has enjoyed the Canadian outdoors has heard the call of loons, in fact it's those type of experiences that draw.

Anyways, needless to say I was pretty shocked to read today, that those beautiful loons, with their haunting calls, so serene and poignant, are actually engaged in staggering acts of violence. Not exactly the visual I prefer, the loon call denoting a potential fight to the death, with the goal to pierce the heart of the opponent:

Loons, those serene emblems of peaceful wilderness lakes, are emerging in modern research as bloodthirsty attackers that drive out or kill their neighbours and take over the rivals' families.

And that lovely, haunting call? It's often a prelude to a fight. Sometimes a fight to the death, if one loon can dive under its rival and stab that sharp beak up into its heart....

The two birds beat each other with powerful wings and try to drown each other, but one bird inevitably gives up before either is killed.

Males, though, fight to the death in about 30 per cent of cases, in a savage fight that can last all day. For unknown reasons, he says, it's always the resident bird that is killed in these cases.

If the attacking male or female wins, it moves in to stay and takes over the mate of the defeated rival.

Basically, that beautiful loon call that denotes a perfect evening, or morning, is the prelude to attempted murder. In other words, the call of the loon, is the equivalent of hearing gunshots, something very bad is happening.

The outdoors will never be the same :)

It Isn't Partisan

It's assumed that part of the reasoning, in the opposition calls for Lukiwski to resign, are based on partisan considerations. A chance to embarrass the government, using Lukiwski to damage the Conservative brand, forcing his resignation a political "victory". However, if one is truly being partisan in this regard, then the last thing anyone should want is Lukiwski to resign.

What better politically, then to have Lukiwski remain in his high profile position as parliamentary secretary? Scott Brison today:

“Allowing the member to remain an officer of the House of Commons defaces this institution. Does the Prime Minister realize that his tepid response to these hateful remarks against gays and Canadians suffering from aids tells Canadians that hate, bigotry and prejudice are just fine in his Canada?”

From a tactical, partisan perspective, there is more to be gained in leaving Lukiwski right where he is, because as Brison alludes to, it does send a message that bigotry and prejudice is condoned, through inaction, within the Conservative Party. In the past, Harper has gone to great lengths to distance himself from the belief that members of his party are outside of mainstream Canadian thought, particularly on social issues. Lukiwski on the front lines contradicts the wanted appearance, whether fair or not, he will always be a poster boy for the unattractive underbelly. Having him remain as parliamentary secretary, suffering no retribution, serves as a constant reminder of the type of people that the "new" Conservative Party attracts.

No, if this issue was viewed solely from a partisan lens, moral consideration aside, the last thing anyone should demand is Lukiwski resign, his continued presence is far more valuable politically than his quick dismissal.

Obama Closing In Pennsylvania

Just as the Obama camp tries to lower expectations in Pennsylvania, the polls are clearly showing a narrowing, Obama looks to have momentum. It was only a couple weeks ago, that most polls showed Clinton with a big double digit lead (average 16%). It would appear Obama's huge fundraising advantage, which has allowed him to outspend Clinton 4-1 in Pennsylvania is paying dividends. The three most recent polls:

Insider Advantage:

Clinton 45$
Obama 42%

PPD:

Obama 45%
Clinton 43%

Rasmussen:

Clinton 47%
Obama 42%

On top of the fundraising advantage, Clinton is increasingly on the defensive to justify her campaign, which may be another reason to explain Obama's mini "surge". On the other hand, the national polls don't seem to indicate that, with the last four offerings all within the margin of error:

Gallup:

Obama 49%
Clinton 46%

CBS/NYT:

Obama 46%
Clinton 43%

Rasmussen:

Obama 46%
Clinton 43%

NBC/WSJ:

Obama 45%
Clinton 45%

Obama was pulling away, and it looked to be a trend, but since then the gap is back to a virtual stalemate.

On the whole, good signs for Obama in Pennsylvania, if he could ever pull out a win, the race would be over, given the expectations. In reality, a close result also works for Obama, because anything less than a decisive win for Clinton, in a state she needs desperately, and the calls for her to pull out will reach crescendo.

R.I.P Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski

"Let me put it to you this way. There's A's and B's. The A's are guys like me. The B's are homosexual faggots with dirt in their fingernails that transmit diseases."


Maybe he could guest blog on Small Dead Animals?

UPDATE

Complete transcript here.

Should Greens Pass On Election?

This is what Elizabeth May says, regarding what the various parties should do in collaboration to stop Harper:

"Not just specific trades in different ridings, but an effort to be more collaborative so that we can figure out -- in a first-past-the-post system -- can we work together to ensure that (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper enjoys a one-term period as prime minister.

"We cannot afford more than one term of this government."

There was a comment left on one of my posts, which had a certain inherent logic, if you take May's resolve to the final conclusion:

I May wants so badly for Harper to be defeated - why is her party running any candidates at all?? Name me one riding in all of Canada where having a green party candidate running in addition to a Liberal and an NDP candidate running is somehow going to help end Harper's reign as PM. If she wants Harper to lose so badly, why doesn't she pledge NOT to run any candidates at all and instead that she will endorse whichever NDP or Liberal candidate she thinks has the best chance of defeating the Conservatives in the next election. Or at the very least should could unilaterally pledge not to run any candidates against any NDP or Liberal incumbents.

If her singular goal in politics is to defeat Harper - that's what she will have to do.

I ask the following seriously, rather than an attempt to draw the ire of Greens, people which I respect- should the Greens pull candidates from ridings where the prospects of their running benefits the Conservatives? Following the May logic, in ridings where the fight is clearly between the two main parties, wouldn't an exit by the Green candidate, with an endorsement, be the best way to end the Harper reign? Unless a Green has a realistic chance of winning in a riding, then isn't the strategic play, the moral one, according to May, to coalesce around the candidate with the best chance of defeating the Conservative?

Are these fair questions?

Dead Heat?

A new Harris-Decima poll(h/t BCL), that suggests a dead heat:

The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests the Tories have 32 per cent support, with the Liberals at 30 per cent, which is within the survey’s margin of error.

The NDP have 13 per cent, the Greens 12 per cent and the Bloc is at nine per cent.

Some recent polls, namely the preceived reliable CROP offering, have shown the Conservatives moving up in Quebec. Two weeks ago Decima had the Conservatives well back in third- Bloc 37% Libs 27% Cons 19% NDP 12%. The newest poll still seems to understand Conservative support, although it does show erosion for the Liberals:

In Quebec, the latest poll suggested 37 per cent support for the Bloc, 21 per cent each for the Conservatives and Liberals, 10 per cent for the Greens and nine per cent for the NDP.

These results are the reason I put a question mark in the title. I'm prepared to believe the CROP poll over Decima, based on sample size and previous predictability. The understating of Quebec support makes a national tie slightly off. That said, the Liberal drop in Quebec seems reasonable, given what has transpired in the last couple of weeks, and Decima is now in line with others.

In Ontario:

In Ontario, the survey suggested the Liberals are at 38 per cent with the Tories at 33 per cent. The Green party has 15 per cent, leading the NDP at 10 per cent.

That seems a pretty good result for the Liberals, but it is a drop, based on the last week of Decima's previous poll:

In Ontario, latest results show the Liberals with 43%, compared to the Conservatives 32%,
the NDP 14%, and the Greens at 9%.

That poll was done in the midst of the Flaherty assault, there appears to be some pullback since, as the story returns to Liberal inaction.

Still, the real story here, the NDP at 10% in Ontario, a number I've never seen, even if for a brief moment. That works in concert with the lowly 13% nationally, all indications that the NDP strategy of painting the Liberals as ineffective isn't drawing any disgruntled support their way. These numbers might also be a reflection of the by-election results, which gave a wave of negative coverage to the NDP.

The good news for the Liberals, and more potential bad news for the NDP:

The survey suggested the Liberals are the second choice for 30 per cent of voters, while the Tories are the second choice for 19 per cent.

This narrows the Conservative chance for growth.

“There’s a lack of enthusiasm for the Conservatives, waning interest in the NDP and a firming of support for the Green party,” he said...

“NDP voters show increased interest in the Liberals and fewer Conservative voters see the Liberal brand as toxic.”

A small caveat, the lower numbers in Ontario and Quebec for the Liberals would probably mean their second choice totals would increase with other party voters- that seems logical. That said, worrying signs for the NDP, and the sense of potential for the Liberals.

Come On Now

I have this image of CTV's Bob Fife spending his entire day running around trying to find fresh Liberal dirt to talk about, in between telephone calls with Lapierre (is he the only Liberal source in Quebec?). This is just a whole lot of nothingness, made to look provocative:

CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said the Liberal party obtained the injunction Tuesday night, and will be in court with Montreal's La Presse newspaper at 2:30 p.m. ET Wednesday to find out whether it can keep the list out of the public eye.


Fife, calling it a "bizarre" story, said Quebec Liberal boss Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette boasted recently there were 50 Liberal candidates, including 12 "star candidates" slated to run in the province.


However, the list, which was leaked to a La Presse reporter, only had 32 names on it. When the reporter called the party looking for an explanation, officials moved forward with the court action, Fife said.


"The explanation we're being told by the Liberals here is there are these great 12 star candidates, but they don't want their names released because it could affect their jobs," Fife told CTV's Canada AM from Ottawa.


"I guess that may be the explanation but clearly what's going on is this is more of the war inside the Quebec Liberal party in the federal wing."


He said Jean Lapierre, a former Liberal cabinet minister who headed the party's Quebec efforts, said the situation is unusual because the party usually rushes to publish the names of candidates as soon as possible, before they change their minds.

I guess that might be the explanation? Sounds pretty reasonable, at least enough of an explanation that Fife shouldn't immediately use it as further evidence of the "war" in Quebec. What Fife does here- and he uses the always mischevious Lapierre as cover- is he basically suggests that the Liberals are lying to him, there are no star candidates.

Yes, if there is one thing Dion is, it's a LIAR. I mean, look at all the examples, the man is clearly morally challenged. This is not "evidence" of infighting, as Fife suggests, in fact that is a stretch of the highest order, to fit into his lazy thesis. What a hoot, Fife finds ghosts everywhere on the Liberals, but when Cadman broke, a story with incredible implications, his first kneejerk reaction, "I don't see anything here".

The king of inference, the duke of doublespeak, the prince of unfounded inneundo, I give you Robert Fife.

UPDATE:

For contrast, here is a relatively fair report:

OTTAWA — The federal Liberals are in a Montreal court Wednesday trying to block a newspaper from publishing a list of party candidates lined up to run in Quebec.

The party says some of its star candidates won't run in the next election if their names are prematurely disclosed by Montreal's La Presse.

Leader Stéphane Dion says some people who've agreed to run for the party don't want their names revealed until an election is called.

His Quebec lieutenant, Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, says some of the would-be candidates are professionals and public office holders who can't announce their candidacies without jeopardizing their current jobs.

She says some of them have told her they won't run if their names are prematurely leaked.

That makes perfect sense- but don't buy it for a second. Did Iggy leak the list?

Harper Shrewd?

It’s pretty debatable, whether or not the Harper government benefits from floating the idea of re-opening the Constitution. On the one hand, the Conservatives appeal to Quebecers, send another signal of openness. However, there are so many unknowns, when you start to walk down this path, that any discussion is rife with potential pitfalls, that could cause a backlash.

It’s all very vague now, but you have to wonder if that will be the case in an election campaign:

The Harper government is telling Quebec that if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election, they will look to reopen the Constitution and give more meaning to their recognition of Quebeckers as a nation.

The recognition of the Quebec nation within Canada allows us to think that we can put some meat around it, and that a majority government is more able to do a number of things, while being respectful of all of the provinces,” Mr. Blackburn said in an interview.
“When you're a minority, you never know what can happen, so it's not obvious to do that type of thing in the actual context,” Mr. Blackburn said on the topic of constitutional change.

The trick for the Conservatives, dangle the carrot, without getting into the details, or firm promises. The ability to do that is largely dependent on the Liberal reaction. Obviously, there is a way to use the majority scenario against the Conservatives in parts of English Canada, but the really intriguing part- how do the Liberals react in Quebec?

I’m of the mindset that Harper does get mileage by floating this idea in Quebec, if the Liberals respond with the same outdated language and views of federalism. As a matter of fact, the Liberals will be largely irrelevant in any discussion if the philosophy isn’t “modernized”. The hill is steeper, when you consider that Dion embodies the old ways, or at least that is the perception in Quebec. If there is going to be a discussion of federalism in the next election, the Liberals have to bring some new concepts to the table, otherwise Harper benefits, merely by suggestion, rather than concrete measures.

Last year, there was a highly touted book released, Reconquering Canada: A New Project for the Quebec Nation, written by a group of Quebec federalists. While there was a mention of the book on the Liberal website, there really wasn’t much discussion coming from our leadership about the ideas. I guess the effectiveness of Harper’s strategy may well be contingent on the Liberal response, and in some ways it could jumpstart adaptation coming from the Liberal ranks. Dion could possibly move past “Mr. Clarity Act”, at least enough to join the conversation within Quebec.

The trouble for the Liberals here, if they make a big deal out of Harper’s suggestions in English Canada, use fear of the unknown to hurt the Conservatives, it could further marginalize them in Quebec. Harper walks a tightrope by floating the Constitution, but he also lays a few traps for the Liberals, and hopefully people react accordingly. If the Liberals are passive, the exercise will only reaffirm their irrelevance in Quebec, allow Harper a free path as the only federalist option. If the Liberals are progressive, it could provide opportunity.

Art Hanger Is An Ally

On one level, you could frustrated with Conservative MP Art Hanger, for blocking the Cadman probe. But, when you stop to think about it, Hanger's schoolyard antics just add oxygen to a story with no new developments. The biggest risk, the media would become bored, Cadman would fade to the background. I honestly believe the media thinks something is afoot, but the attention span is lacking, you need fresh tidbits to maintain the storyline.

The Liberals have done a good job keeping the story alive, Dryden's question in QP yesterday, LeBlanc this morning. But, the Hanger stonewall has peaked everyone's interest, and the saga looks to continue, guaranteeing a few more cycles of coverage.

Thank-you Art Hanger, you've made the frontpage:

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Or

Here

Let's hope Hanger walks out a couple more times.

Online Polls

Everytime I post a online poll, the usual suspects diss the results out of hand. It's not necessarily the results- although the cries tend to be louder if the numbers don't support the partisan want- it's the methodology. I prefer to base my opinion, on the actual accuracy, the real results, compared to the polling, to gauge if the Angus Reid online poll is worthy of consideration. I will let you be the judge, no opinion, just the numbers for the last four provincial elections:

SASK ELECTION 2007
Results..... Angus Reid Poll
Sask. 52%.... 52%

NDP 37%.... 35%

Lib. 10%.... 12%

Oth. 2%.... 2%

ONTARIO ELECTION 2007

Results..... Angus Reid Poll

Lib. 42%.... 40%

PC 32%.... 34%

NDP 17%.... 19%

Grn. 8%.... 7%

MANITOBA ELECTION 2007

Results.... Angus Reid Poll

NDP 48%.... 49%

PC 38%.... 37%

Other 14%.... 15%

QUEBEC ELECTION 2007

Results.... Angus Reid Poll

Lib. 33% 31%

ADQ 31% 30%

PQ 28% 29%

Looks pretty darn accurate from here. Just the facts please.

Abstaining Costs Liberals?

A new Angus Reid online survey, with some depressing trends for the Liberals and Dion. The Liberals are polling at their lowest level for this outfit, and Dion has also hit a new bottom. The party numbers:

The Conservatives enjoy the support of 36 per cent of Canadians – roughly the same level as the 2006 election – but the Liberals have dropped to 26 per cent, down two percentage points in the last month and four percentage points from the 2006 vote, according to the poll.

The New Democrats are at 18 per cent, the Bloc Québécois at 9 per cent and the Green party, which enjoyed a strong showing in the March 17 by-elections, is at 9 per cent, double its support in the 2006 federal election.

A decent number for the Conservatives, pretty much the same as their showing in the last election. The real reason for the 10 point gap is clearly erosion on the Liberal side, down from 31% at the beginning of February to a new bottom of 26%. One caveat, Angus Reid's Ontario numbers show no relationship to any other outfit, a deadheat, 35% each, with the NDP at 21%. That result, which seems to overstate NDP support relative to others, plus the questionable tie scenario, might have contributed to the unusually low Liberal score.

However, that question aside, Dion's numbers are abysmal. Only 11% of Canadians approve of Dion's perfomance, down a full 6 point since February. Equally concerning, Dion's disapproval numbers have reached towering heights, a full 57% disapprove, a rise of 7 points:

Reid said voter dissatisfaction with Dion appears to be reaching levels rarely seen in Canada.

"I can't recall a time when an opposition leader had a disapproval rating as high and an approval rating as low," he said.

Before Conservative supporters get excited, when asked who would be the best Prime Minister, "Neither" beats Harper 42% to 36%.

"I can't remember a period when we had a prime minister who generally was not liked and a leader of the opposition who was as weak as Dion is," he said.

Political support is sharply divided along gender and age, with older men likely to back the Tories while women gravitate to the Liberals.

People can criticize this poll, but using the past offerings for reference, you clearly see real erosion for Dion and the Liberals. In fact, to see such a drop for Dion is particularly worrisome, because his numbers were already very bad, a "bottom" by any measure. It would appear we have a new low, and if I'm looking for cause, seems pretty intuitive that demonstrating weakness, negative press day after day, is the obvious culprit.