Thanks Jimmer

Nice work. Almost reminds me of Cheney's "we will be greeted as liberators".

Searching For Bobby Fischer

Stephen Taylor's latest propaganda piece, which appears on National Newswatch, starts off with common refrain amongst Conservatives. Harper the grandmaster:

Stephen Harper’s strategy is as it has been since Dion became leader of the Liberal party but has become much more evident with the Conservative leader’s latest chess moves.

Others tread water, while Stephen Harper works the board with tactical brilliance. While it is true that the Liberals have taken a hit for abstaining, working in concert with that fact, and largely overshadowing it, the continual mis-steps of the Canadian Kasparov. Such wizardry, the Conservatives would be life and death to hold power in an election.

Some of the highlights this session, that clearly demonstrate the mental superiority, strategy which others can only dream of. Was there a shrewder move, than having a largely unpopular and discredited former provincial Finance Minister declare war on Ontario? Let's go after the guy who was just re-elected to another majority, using the guy who cooked the books, let's tell people not to invest there, that's a sound strategy. Canadian history is full of countless examples, wherein the federal government has savaged a province and it's paid dividends politically, especially one that holds 1/3 of the population. I can't remember any right now, but I probably just need to do more research, like those brainiacs in the PMO. From the moment Harper hatched this strategy it was doomed to fail, so obvious I actually watched in amazement the way the Conservatives voluntarily torpedoed their electoral chances. Brilliant, I say.

Speaking of self-inflicted wounds, I'm sure everyone felt the same as I did, watching the deft manoeuvers of the Conservatives as they cleverly navigated the Elections Canada minefield. That "secret" meeting with reporters had Harper written all over it- well done sir! I'd be hard pressed to come up with a better plan than making yourself look guilty as sin, not to mention alienating the people who will carry your "message". Watching the keystone cop routine, it was quite shocking to read that Canadians didn't buy the Conservatives spin. Nothing says competence like how one reacts to a crisis, the ability to ad lib.

Stephen Taylor points to Dion's troubles, Harper plays him like a fool, while Dion flails to "survive". What people like Taylor really do, as they savage Dion, they demonstrate in stark terms- Stephen Harper is so inept, he can't take advantage of the hapless official opposition. Harper is such a chess master, his support is actually shrinking, within the backdrop of an Liberal Party that apparently shows nothing but weakness. What an achievement, eroding support, stagnant support, despite OPTIMAL conditions against a guy who's leadership hangs by a thread.

Harper the chess master is more mythology than practical application. Then again, Harper is two or three moves ahead of everyone else, I probably just can't see it yet...

Defining Democratic Victory

Another round of primaries, another game of expectations. Trying to figure what victory means, seems to depend on the source, or the respective campaign's spin. I thought I would offer what I think are legitimate scenarios, which would rightfully allow either side to crow.

"Victory" for Obama:

Aside from the obvious, he's "already won" argument, Obama needs to show something tonight. I would argue that a double digit win in North Carolina is an absolute necessity, given the demographics, given where we were just two weeks ago (Obama leading by 20 plus according to some). If Obama manages a rout in North Carolina, then he really only needs a razor thin loss (2 points)in Indiana to claim overall victory. If, however, Clinton were to win by a larger margin in Indiana, North Carolina is negated, and if anything, Indiana would be viewed as the more representative fight, because both campaigns have built-in advantages.

The other scenario for victory is pretty self-evident. A win in Indiana, no matter the margin, accompanied by a win in North Carolina, no matter the margin, translates to complete success, Clinton is effectively done, pressure will mount on her to concede, superdelegates will flock to Obama in droves.

"Victory" for Clinton:

Anything less than a win in Indiana, see above. Clinton doesn't have to win big in Indiana, it is the "tiebreaker" after all, but she made need more than a squeaker, if she is blown out in North Carolina. Lose North Carolina by less than double digits, and any victory is good in Indiana. Make it respectable in North Carolina, carry whites by a noticeable margin, coupled with a convincing win in Indiana, that is the best case scenario for her, she lives on, questions remain about Obama, West Virgina looms next (she leads by 30 plus), superdelegates probably stay on the sidelines.

If Clinton were to win both, which she won't, then Obama is mortally wounded, he will never recover.


The likely scenario here, neither campaign does what it needs for a clear "victory", much will be left for interpretation. Columnists with a soft spot for Obama will re-introduce the horrible math for Clinton, the Clinton leaning view will ask why Obama struggles, the annointed one and all.

Should be a fascinating night.

Perfecting Dishonesty

You know you have an incredibly weak argument, when your only resort is too misquote, or misrepresent "expert" opinion to support your policies. A couple of weeks ago Peter Van Loan used Democracy Watch to support his argument that the "in and out" was legal. This led to an angry reaction from the organization, because their actual view was the Conservatives had acted outside of the framework, they would lose their legal case. It's actually an admission of desperation, because generally, in most arguments, you can always find something genuinely supportive- the fact the Conservatives couldn't speaks to the unanimity of disagreement.

Today, Vic Toews and Stephen Harper pulled a "Van Loan" (formerly known as a "John Baird"), in trying to defend the government decision to end the information registry. Toews cited "expert" Alasdair Roberts to support the government action:

"a leading expert on access to information law,"

Harper then cited a 2003 report by Roberts on government secrecy.
"It (CAIRS) was called the product of a political system in which centralized control is an obsession and that is why the government got rid of it," Harper told the Commons.
Toews subsequently claimed the same virtuous high ground, citing Roberts verbatim.

Well, the "leading expert" isn't amused:

The Conservative party line backfired when Alasdair Roberts - "a leading expert on access to information law," according to Treasury Board President Vic Toews - trashed their talking points moments after the daily question period.

But neither Harper nor Toews mentioned that Roberts had recommended fixing the problem by making the registry public online - something the federal information commissioner reported in 2004 could be done "at virtually no cost" to government

"They really don't care what I think about CAIRS or any other aspect of ATI," Roberts said Monday from New Delhi, India.

"If they did they would have taken my advice about CAIRS a few years ago when I said they ought to switch on the capacity to make the entire thing publicly accessible."

This is how pathetic this government can be, they elevate people to defend their policies, people who actually VEHEMENTLY disagree with those policies. If that isn't the height of absurd, I don't know what is.

Setting The Record Straight

Everyone has had their fun with Pierre Poilievre, clearly an easy target. In reading some of the blogs, and comment sections, I've heard several references to Pierre, saying he was probably picked on in school, bullied, that sort of thing. In the spirit of fairness, I thought I would post the following. I know it's only one picture, but you do the get the sense that, despite being held back a couple of years, Pierre appeared happy and well adjusted:






I do question the parenting though, where's his sun hat?


Today's required "in and out" reading here.

Don't Spread Yourself Too Thin Stephane

Like Jeff, I agree that if there is no election (shrug), Dion is probably well served with a tour, speaking with Canadians. Not the mundane barbecue circuit, speaking to the choir, but a real effort to throw out some policy, try to rehabilate Dion's image. There is just no question, if the Liberals are too win, then Dion must improve his stature.

Where I jump off the "good idea" train is the cross-country aspect. I think the best approach is a tactical one. If you asked Liberals what region of the country needs the most attention, which one offers the biggest challenges for Dion personally, which one is critical for the long term future of the Liberal Party, the obvious response is Quebec. Dion touring the entire country is great on the one hand, but given the challenges of such a diverse land, I think he could get more mileage with a targeted tour, in the province were he is weakest.

Forget Ontario, a few visits by Dion will have a negligible effect. As a recall, last summer Dion spent the majority of his time in Ontario, primarily as a function of ridings, but to me, that was always a head scratcher. If Dion doesn't set foot in Ontario this summer, the Liberals won't suffer, it isn't a slap in the face, it's really not even on the radar. No, Dion needs to go where Dion needs to do work, and that means Quebec, Quebec, Quebec.

Dion on the radio, Dion on any station that will have him, Dion in every riding (with Coderre and Pablo in tow), Dion on a bus touring every nook, as though McCain in New Hampshire. Town halls, Q and A's, meeting with editorial boards, you name it, grind, grind, grind. A concentrated effort has more potential for buzz, rather than getting lost around the country, while people are on holidays, politics a distant concern. A focused tour, specifically in Quebec, sends a message, an effort that is unlikely to be ignored, Dion could maximize his exposure, during a season that is never kind to opposition leaders.

Dion has one asset in most of the country, Canadians don't really know him, whatever impressions are superficial, they can be altered. It is the polar opposition in Quebec, Dion confronts a unattractive legacy, in many quarters a "rat", in others just not well liked. Send a message that the Liberals haven't written off a Dion led Liberal Party in Quebec, start making strides to get off the persistent "bottom". Act with urgency, address the primary weakness, in the province that needs it. There are 90 000 former Quebec Liberals out there who have left the party in the last few years, job one is winning them back Liberals, re-establishing some semblance of the "big red machine". Nothing ventured, nothing gained, it is simply unacceptable to proceed with resignation, it is simply stupid to act relatively passive, while others look to fill the void, establishing a permanent presence that might forever change the playing field.

If Stephane Dion doesn't spend two minutes in Ontario this summer I will applaud him. I don't want to see him in P.E.I, or Alberta, I want to see him addressing the elephant in the room, in a focused and positive way. If I am forced to endure more abstaining and bow to the greater minds that preach patience, then at the least, I want to see a game plan moving forward. That game plan starts with Quebec and ends with Quebec.

A Key Ally?

I firmly believe that the anti-Ontario frame of the Harper government is starting to gel with voters. It's not just the polls, but it's also the cementing media narrative. Today, on QP, all four media representatives wondered aloud about the Conservatives strategy in Ontario, basically shaking their heads at the tactics. Oliver pointed out something, which many of us have already noted, Canadian history rarely shows an example, wherein the feds have won in a protracted and public battle with a province. It's a loser strategy all around, and yet that's what the Conservatives have done, basically alienating a third of the Canadian population.

People can debate how Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams plays across the country. However, his positioning on the McGuinty/Harper feud will, in my view, play very badly for the Conservatives in Ontario. For the second time this week, Williams has publicly recounted the details of the Premier's last meeting with Harper, and it paints a vision of a neglectful Prime Minister. Of course, Harper would surely offer a different view, but he doesn't have the political credibility in Ontario any longer to make it believable. In other words, Williams opinion feeds an already held perception, it further reinforces:

He recalled a meeting last year between the premiers and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"I was at the prime minister's house when he indicated he didn't think this was a problem that needed the direct intervention of the federal government," he said.

"So I took (Harper) to task on that and we had a discussion. As well, I've indicated publicly that as a province, we're very supportive of the need to get Ontario through this critical situation."

..."I have great difficulty when (Flaherty) makes a statement that the last place to invest in the country is the province of Ontario," Williams said.

The N.L. premier has had his battles with the federal Conservatives over issues like equalization. However, the province's current good fortune means it will be off equalization next year.

"It just goes to show their attitude," Williams said of his federal cousins. "When they want to dig in and malign a province, they do it at their whim and if it suits their agenda."

Harper can't win that battle, Williams championing the need to help Ontario, calling out the PM's inaction. Williams, the surrogate defender of Ontario's interest, completely in sync with McGuinty, completely in line with the growing narrative, completely believable to an already suspicious Ontario electorate. Williams may be a key Liberal ally in Ontario, or at the very least, another voice in a growing chorus of negativity.

"We Need To Put A Price On Carbon"

There has been plenty of speculation on whether or not Dion and the Liberals will present a carbon tax, as part of their environmental policy. Reading this interesting column by Dion today, it effectively puts the debate to an end. The Liberals will offer a carbon tax, of some sort:

We can talk about what the best model for putting a price on carbon across Canada might be, but the fact is we need to just do it...

We need to put a price on carbon. We need to make the costs of damaging our environment immediately visible and let polluters know they can't continue to dump pollution into our atmosphere for free. The price of carbon pollution must increase over time to encourage industry to change its behaviour and make greener choices so it can thrive in the 21st century.

I have never been a fan of the "three pillars" presentation by Dion, mostly because it might be too abstract to be understood. That said, I think he does an excellent job of presenting a coherent vision for the future, nicely weaving everything together to convey all oars in the water, towards a clear destination.

The political pitfalls of offering a new "tax", especially on a commodity which is already soaring, are obvious. You can already hear the Conservatives wailing, the attacks will effectively kill any substantive debate, just a question of defining the negative optics. On one level, Dion plays right into the Conservatives narrative, a tax and spend liberal. In the world of soundbites, Dion will lose everytime, because people need to engage to see the wisdom.

I assume that a spring election is off the table, judging from the recent comments. If that is truly the case, then Dion would be well served "selling" his ideas in the coming months. Not the barbeque circuit, but putting together a roundtable, enlisting expert opinion, to show that his ideas are economically sound, a tax shift, rather than a tax increase, a path that positions Canada well for the looming green economy. Dion can't sell this idea on his own, he needs allies, and the good news, they exist in spades, from surprising sources, from reputable, serious economists. The best way to present this controversial idea is Dion as the willing messenger, guided by expert opinion. In this way, Dion is somewhat insulated from the kneejerk Conservative attacks, in a best case scenario, he can counter that the government is out of touch.

Dion also has allies with provincial governments, in terms of policy. It is for that reason that the worry of political cost, in advocating a tax on carbon, can be offset by practical application. One of the great hypocritical positions of the Harper government, how they chastize Ontario's McGuinty for high taxes, yet they applaud British Columbia's Campbell for raising taxes that clearly impact industry. Blatant inconsistency aside, by all accounts the idea of a carbon tax is fairly popular in British Columbia, enough at least, that if Dion embraces the idea, there is no political price, potential gains. Ditto for Quebec, I don't see the risk, if anything Dion finds support through the provincial approach.

It would be a bold position, but in many ways Dion confronts his nemesis, the perception that he is weak. Presenting something, which at first blush might be unpopular, but has a real logic behind, it tells Canadians Dion is more concerned with getting it right, rather than scoring obvious political points. It's actually a nice contrast with the Conservatives, and it may well get Dion back to the fore on the environment, drawing some curiousity from voters who have drifted elsewhere.

He Never Rests

Below, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre prepares to haul another load of bullshit, in preparation for the coming week's Question Period:



"I can't tell you how many times I've been in and out of this farm the past few weeks."

The Common Touch

You have to applaud the Prime Minister for showing up in New Brunswick. It's a symbolic gesture, but our national leader's presence sends the message that the rest of Canada understands the gravity, an expression of support.

Okay, now that I have that out of the way, a closer inspection of the actual visit reveals much about our Prime Minister. Rarely, do we see Harper mingle with the masses, his only public appearances are usually partisan filled rooms, structured and scripted. Yesterday, I was able to watch a few minutes of Harper touring the damage, speaking with residents. It only takes a few seconds to see the Harper achilles heel- the man simply lacks the common touch.

Wooden, robotic, a general unease, as Harper greeted residents. A sense that Harper was "trying", a sense that he wasn't really comfortable in that setting. It really is amazing, we have a Prime Minister that lacks the capacity to engage with the population, clearly not a "people" person. Watching those few moments, is it any wonder why Harper hasn't cultivated any affection with the Canadian population? No wonder everything is so carefully orchestrated, when you see the man wade in, you realize there really isn't much to work with.

Ipsos Poll

First the numbers:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives command 34% in support among decided voters, compared with 29% for the Liberals, according to the nationwide survey, which was conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National.

The result is little changed from an Ipsos Reid poll on April 11, when the Conservatives posted 35% in support, compared with 30% for the Liberals.

The NDP registered 17% in the latest poll, up one percentage point, while the Greens rose one point to 11%

Interesting Quebec numbers, another poll shows growing NDP strength:

The Bloc Quebecois slipped two points to 31%, while the Liberals climbed three points to 26% and the Conservatives fell three points to 20%. The NDP sit at 17%, up five points, while the Greens fell two points to six per cent.

Quite different results from the recent CROP and Leger polls, but noteworthy considering Ipsos tends to "over-state" Conservative support (Don Martin National Post). Speaking of over-stating, I'm not buying these results in the least:

The Liberals remained at 38% and the Tories at 34%, while the Greens rose two points to 14% and the NDP dropped two points to 13%.

I also don't buy the analysis of Bricker, who says the in and out is "pretty confusing". It's actually fairly simple, "cheating" isn't a complex consideration, beyond the mundane details. I would counter with the overwhelming results by Decima, Innovative Research and Angus Reid, all of which say the scandal does matter. I suppose Conservatives will take comfort in these results, that's your prerogative, but I am quite comfortable thinking Bricker has it wrong. One small caveat, Bricker did acknowledge this hurts the Conservatives "lily white" image.

So, according to Ipsos no real change in the numbers, but I would counter that the Ontario results are clearly an outlier, relative to other polls, which would skew the national results. Ipsos remains the only pollster to show a close race in Ontario, given the movement after the Flaherty debacle, a weakening economy, coupled with this scandal, I see little reason to believe their results. Anybody who does, are simply ignoring the majority opinion, selecting what feeds their own wants.

I agree with one conclusion, the numbers won't really move until an election.

“People Need A Reason To Give"

The above comment, from an unnamed Liberal MP, in reference to poor fundraising totals. The Globe and Mail article also references the Conservatives techniques for raising money, in this quarter it was the CBC:

For their part, the Conservatives say a fundraising campaign in which they criticized the CBC drove a significant number of donations into their coffers.
“It was overwhelmingly our single biggest fundraising initiative,” said a Tory official.

Late last year, party campaign director Doug Finley sent out a letter asking for money after reports that a CBC reporter supplied questions to a Liberal MP during a committee hearing.

“It demonstrates a huge level of suspicion amongst grassroots Canadians about the Liberal Party and the CBC,” the official said.

One of the main reasons the Conservatives are successful, their fundraising is predicated on creating an enemy, and with that a sense of victimization. Forces working against the Conservatives, the party needs money to fight the “foe”. It’s all bunk of course, the CBC is completely mainstream, if there is a perception that Conservatives get a raw deal on that network, it probably stems from the fact that their narrow perspective isn’t representative of Canada as a whole. As I’ve argued before, pretty nonsensical to claim an anti-Conservative bias on the CBC, when their signature political “At Issue” panel consists of a former Conservative employee, a former National Post senior writer and a francophone woman who hates the Liberals and Dion- if that doesn’t say left-wing conspiracy, I don’t know what does.

However, the objective truth is really irrelevant, when it comes to the Conservative fundraising, all that matters is projecting a sense of “wronged”, an urgent plea to counter the perceived threat. The CBC serves as an easy target, and I don’t doubt it was effective, given the venom directed at our public broadcaster from online Conservatives. There is a siege mentality within the Conservative ranks that lends itself to fundraising drives. Us vs them seems to be the central thesis, that weaves itself into every discussion. Money is a way to counter the perceived disadvantage.

The Liberals can’t motivate, using manufactured paranoia to solicite money. The Liberals must use issues, and the trick now- how to demand money to fight, when the perception is it doesn’t matter, we will acquiesce in the end? Any online Liberal has surely received the emails asking for money, to fight this or that, but what is lacking is the conviction that the fight will translate to action in the end. You are left with the abstract, one day we stand up and right all these wrongs, that is a hard sell, there is no immediacy in that tactic. Fundraising won’t improve until there is something to stand on, maybe that comes from more policy development, but maybe that comes when the stakes are raised and people are faced with another Harper government. Whatever, the Liberals don’t have the same luxury as the Conservatives, they don’t have a persecution complex that feeds the coffers, they don’t have a “out to get me” mentality, a cause, and that simple fact explains a lot, as to why the Conservatives are able to generate oodles of money.

Wow

Read em and weep:

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have raked in five times as much money from four times as many donors as the Liberal party during the first three months of this year.

Financial returns filed with Elections Canada show that the Tories raised $4.95 million from 44,345 contributors. At the same time, the Liberal party raised only $846,129 from 10,169 contributors.

Once Canada's most efficient political money-raising machine, the Liberals actually brought in less than the New Democratic Party during the first quarter of 2008; the NDP raised $1.1 million from 13,329 donors.

The Bloc Quebecois, which needs far less money since it operates strictly in Quebec, raised $37,006 from 463 donors.

The fledgling Green party brought in $210,962 from 4,731 donors.

By way of comparison, the NDP basically doubled their contributions from the last quarter, the Liberals less than half of their 4th quarter 2007 tally. I suppose an optimist would argue that the Liberals have doubled their haul from the same period last year, but that was after the leadership contest, hardly a fair comparison.

Nevermind the disturbing gap from the Conservatives, the NDP has more contributors, raised more money than the Liberals? I see this as directly attributable to what has been going in Ottawa. You can argue about the average Canadian taking notice, but there is no doubt party members, people who donate, know the landscape well. One party fights, one abstains, you do the math, or more correctly, look at the math.

Elections Canada Aiding Separatists?

The Conservatives have provided many examples, wherein Elections Canada have turned a blind eye to the "fishy" financing practices of the Bloc. Bloc MP Michel Guimond, yesterday in parliament, spoke to this line of argument:

It is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Conservatives tell us that a sovereigntist party received preferential treatment from Elections Canada.

Extraordinary indeed, if the Conservatives are correct then EC unfairly punished a federalist party, while simultaneously giving carte blanche to a party, who's primary motivation is the breakup of Canada. Nevermind Liberal moles in EC, I think it time to ask- are there sovereigntist sympathizers within EC, part of a clandestine operation to undermine Canadian unity? Does this fact explain the Bloc motion, declaring full confidence in EC?

I think we should approach the Conservative arguments with an open mind, primarily because the implications of their factual assertions, plainly show that Elections Canada is engaged in a deliberate attempt to undermine Canada, harming federalists, allowing separatists an unfair advantage. Everyone should applaud the Conservatives for exposing Elections Canada, actively trying to undermine our country. Very, very believable, and very disturbing.

Keep Shovelling Pierre

Below, Pierre Poilivre demonstrates the correct method for spreading manure:




Little does Pierre know, he is really digging his own grave.


We've already seen a couple of polls, showing the "in and out" scandal hitting the Conservatives hard. This Harris Decima poll finds overwhelming rejection of the Conservative spin machine, Canadians aren't buying the bull:

Fifty-eight per cent of respondents told The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima survey they don't believe the Tories' insistence that they did nothing wrong. Only 26 per cent found the Conservative defence to be believable.

You see a lot of polls, rarely do you such unanimity, a full 70% of people that responded don't believe the Conservatives. Even when you factor in those that didn't respond, the 26% who believe the Cons is below their base support, nevermind any hope of attracting swing voters.

What is possibly worse for the Conservatives, the "don't believe" numbers are highest in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. You can't spin these results away, Canadians, in convincing terms, don't buy the weak excuses, they believe the Conservatives "cheated" in The kicker, I would argue a good percentage of these numbers where driven by the Conservatives own mis-management of this entire affair, their amateurish reactions, silly rationalizations.

Everyone can take great comfort, the next time Pierre rises to spew the nonsense, knowing full well NOBODY IS BUYING.

CROP Quebec Poll

Robert's post on CROP reads like a kid with a blackberry out on recess. James notes that the Bloc is falling, the Liberals stable. My take, after the numbers:

Bloc 28%
Conservatives 27%
Liberals 20%
NDP 17% here or 18% here
Greens 9% here or, you guessed it 7% here

The Liberals occupy a distant fourth with francophones, a full 5% behind the NDP. In the Quebec region, the Liberal numbers have reached a new low at 10%. However, if you look at the regional breakdowns, the Liberals are still in position to maintain their seat totals, still the possibility for pickups.

Both the Bloc and Conservatives are down 2 points since the last survey, the Liberals unmoved, the NDP up 3 or 4 depending on the source (strange that). As James notes, the erosion of the Bloc and Cons seems to benefit the NDP, but unlike him, I think Liberals should take little comfort in that dynamic. What that situation really tells us, voters are bypassing the Liberals as a second choice, a viable alternative. I would also argue that this dynamic might be the reason why Conservative numbers remain high, as voters don't see much choice, apart from the unproven NDP. That said, the Conservatives are clearly in position to pickup seats.

The NDP has ever right to be gleeful at these numbers, if they were to hold, then the Quebec caucus would surely grow, a beach head established, piercing through the most important hurdle- the perception of viability. The only caution, these numbers are softer than the Maple Leafs defence, a long way to go before they translate to the voter booth.

From the Liberal perspective, I would take these findings as opportunity. The Bloc are clearly on the wane, the appetite for seperation at a very low ebb. The Conservatives have established a base of support, but I suspect their policies still keep people at arms length. There is clearly a void here, and rather than the NDP winning "hearts and minds", I see the surge as more voter "fishing" than fundamental breakthrough. Whether that flirtation translates to concrete results is still largely a function of the Liberal reaction.

The Liberals desperately need to update their language in the province, present a progressive policy vision that appeals to mainstream Quebec, and above all, make Dion relevant to the discussion (Charest's astounding turn around does offer some hope, both are known quantities). Right now, it would appear as though voters, outside of the last bastions, don't even consider the Liberals, a distasteful afterthought. If the Liberals do take a pass on a spring election (the horror!), then I expect Dion to live in Quebec for the entire summer, all energy focused on this albatross, some innovative ideas, confronting his image in a forceful and focused way (unlike the quick hits, here and there, with no sense of gameplan, that we have seen to date), anything less than urgency denotes delusion.

Nothing To Hide?

Remember when Liberal MP Marlene Jennings was accused of suspicious campaign expensions, she immediately went to the media, producing all documentation, to show no irregularities. The reason- everything was within the rules, no problem being forthcoming. Contrast that reaction, with former Conservative candidates being muzzled:

The three Nova Scotian Tory candidates who participated in the in-and-out scheme in the last election have all declined to be interviewed on the subject.

Elections Canada records show that the campaign of Rakesh Khosla, the Tory candidate in Halifax West, wired $11,841 to the national campaign on Dec. 31, 2005. His campaign was reimbursed for the same amount on Jan. 4, 2006.

Halifax candidate Andrew House’s campaign received $4,733 from the national party on Jan. 12. On Jan. 23, it sent the same amount back for an advertising purchase.

The campaign of Dartmouth candidate Robert A. Campbell, a former Mountie, wired $3,947 to the national party for advertising on Dec. 23, 2005, and received the same amount from the party on Jan. 9.

Contacted this week, all of the candidates declined to be interviewed on the subject.

More important the the court case, the court of public opinion. Surely, a wrong has been committed, these people did nothing untoward, we should see a concerted effort to clear the air. That's the reaction of people with nothing to hide, refusing to answer questions, hiding in the shadows, well that suggests something else.

The Conservatives will argue that, with the looming legal question, they have been advised not to speak. Strange that, considering Pierre and company have had no trouble laying out their legal case, hurling accusations at others, in public. What we have heard from the Conservatives constitutes the basis of their legal defence, which means there is no excuse to "muzzle" people, no excuse not to produce the documentation others have asked to see.

You can get lost in the noise of spin. Sometimes, the best way to get to the truth is observing the body language, the way in which parties react. A Liberal is accused, we see full disclosure immediately. A Conservative is accused, they are buried deep within the earth's mantle to avoid the cameras. That distinction tells us all we need to know. If you have nothing to hide, why then are you hiding? Strange.

Government Should Recall All Elections Canada Representatives Working Abroad

It's days like these that make me question the supposed strategic "brilliance" of the Harper Conservatives. It was really pretty simple when you think about, but once again the Conservatives have amplified the damage. The Bloc introduces their motion, expressing confidence in Elections Canada. The easy response for the Conservatives, simply abstain, send a message, without having the government declare no confidence in a national institution, the bedrock of our democracy, an organization that we proudly parade around the world to ensure fairness. You abstain, you just do, you're the government! Everybody would understand, the debate moves on, no harm, no foul- we have a "disagreement with Elections Canada", but we still have confidence in the organization.

You can't be melodramatic here, what the government has done is effectively undermine the credibility of Elections Canada. That vote has implications, that vote tells Canadians that the government doesn't believe we should put any faith in the organization that cradles our democracy. How can the government allow Elections Canada to work abroad, in Haiti, in Afghanistan, the Ukraine, part of many multi-lateral initiatives, with the sole purpose of exporting our expertise, laying democratic foundations based on principle? The government has expressed non confidence in Elections Canada, as a result all their representatives should be recalled home, until we solve this crisis. If the government voted against the Department of National Defence and Hillier, what message does that send to the Afghans, is that not an admission of failure?

The government of Canada, think about this for one second, is so consumed with it's own narrow self-interest, that it tells Canadians it has no faith in an institution which will oversee the next election. Ignatieff is not over-stating here:

Deputy Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the Conservative decision to vote against the motion was "shameful" and "dangerous."

"I find it unbelievable that a governing party in Canada would refuse to support a motion expressing confidence in the institution that keeps our country's elections fair. I just find it unbelievable."

Unbelievable and dangerous indeed. What is the greater good for the Conservative Party of Canada at a given moment, not what is the greater good for the country, for our pillars of democracy.

On the political front, today's boneheaded decision to vote against the motion and not abstain represents the latest installment of the Tory self-inflicted wound routine. After watching how the Conservatives have mishandled EVERY SINGLE development in this squabble with Elections Canada, managed to pour gasoline consistently, I have to say, I don't fear these keystone cops in the least. Today's move is the latest rank amateur decision, demonstrating a mind boggling tunnel vision, that just can't seem to understand the idea of consequence, can't seem to operate with any foresight. No wonder these people need message control, when forced to freelance they are nothing more than incompetent BOOBS.

Dangerous and dumb, quite a combination.

Hey Pierre

Pierre Poilievre during Question Period today, answered ever question with an example of opposition use of their own "in and out". Duceppe asks a question, Pierre responds with examples of the Bloc doing the "same thing". LeBlanc asks a question, Pierre gives an account of how he and other Liberals did the "same thing". Point, counter-point, hard to find the truth, maybe Pierre is really on to something?

I was wondering if Pierre could go one further, considering other parties where playing on the margins, just like the Conservatives. Surely, there must exist some former Liberal candidates, disgruntled Bloc candidates, forsaken NDP candidates, who would be willing to come forward to question the ethics of their own parties "schemes". Clearly, there must be a riding somewhere, where an opposition candidate refused to participate, their moral compass out of whack?

Since everyone is doing the "same thing", then why is it that only former Conservative candidates like Cynthia Downey, Joe Goudie, Gary Caldwell, Barbro Soderberg are on record questioning their party's actions? Why were there two Conservative ridings that flatly refused to participate in the perfectly legitimate expenditures? Why do we only hear of Conservatives smelling something "fishy"?

Hey Pierre, we don't need to compare and contrast with other parties. Seems to me, we can just use CONSERVATIVES to prove the point. I wait with anticipation for former Liberal, Bloc and NDP candidates to come forward and demonstrate their own reservations and questions about their respective party's activities. Seems entirely logical, after all everybody was doing it. Right?

The Obama Myth?

Yesterday, an Obama supporter parroted the often used line that he is a stronger candidate than Clinton, based on the ability to win "red" states, draw support from new voter polls, expand the Democratic brand. This argument is central to the Obama campaign, Clinton is too divisive, only Obama can appeal, he is a better match against McCain.

Just for fun, I thought I would put that theory to the test. I've taken all the polls, the head to head matchups with McCain, in every state available. The criteria is as follows, I've awarded both candidates the Electoral College votes for each state, if they meet the minimum threshold of at least a statistical tie. Here are the results:

Arkansas: Clinton 6 Obama 0

California: Clinton 55 Obama 55

Colorado: Clinton 0 Obama 9

Florida: Clinton 27 Obama 0

Indiana: Clinton 0 Obama 0

Iowa: Clinton 0 Obama 7

Maine: Clinton 4 Obama 4

Mass: Clinton 12 Obama 12

Michigan: Clinton 0 Obama 17

Minnesota: Clinton 9 Obama 9

Missouri: Clinton 11 Obama 0

Nevada: Clinton 0 Obama 5

New Hampshire: Clinton 0 Obama 4

New Jersey: Clinton 15 Obama 15

New Mexico: Clinton 5 Obama 0

North Carolina: Clinton 0 Obama 0

Ohio: Clinton 20 Obama 20

Oregon: Clinton 7 Obama 7

Pennsylvania: Clinton 21 Obama 21

Texas: Clinton 0 Obama 0

Virginia: Clinton 0 Obama 0

Washington: Clinton 11 Obama 11

West Virginia: Clinton 5 Obama 0

Wisconsin: Clinton 0 Obama 10

TOTALS:

Clinton 208
Obama 206

If anyone (Obama supporters) want to quibble with the use of a statistical tie in the polls, I would remind them that Obama gains both Pennsylvania and Ohio using this measure- it seems fair, since a tie is the unknown, both candidates subject to the same methodology.

There you have it, a slight Clinton lead, really a deadheat. That shouldn't really surprise anyone, given the closeness of the race, but it does challenge a central tenet of the Obama campaign- electability. The projected numbers tend to make the claim look more myth than actuality.

"In And Out" Feedback

Another poll looking into the fallout of the “in and out” scandal suggests awareness is high and the Conservatives may take a hit. The online Innovative Research poll found:

52 per cent of Canadians said they would be less likely to vote for the Conservative Party if it is confirmed that the Tories did commit some irregularities in their spending in the last federal election and 41 per cent polled said that the outcome of the investigation won't have any effect on their voting decision in the next election.

The poll revealed that 82 per cent of those surveyed said that they have heard about the "in and out" election financing investigation and 59 per cent of those said that, as a result, they have a less favourable view of the Harper Tories, while 36 per cent said the investigation into the party's advertising spending made no difference in their opinion about the party.

The pollster concludes the scandal hasn’t affected the base, but there is the potential for some erosion, especially with undecideds:

The poll also showed that one in four Conservative voters and more than half of the undecided are left with a less favourable impression of the Conservative Party. And one in six Conservatives said that if the Conservatives were found guilty of violating election law, they would be less likely to vote for the Conservative Party.

One in six translates to about 5-6% of national support amongst Conservative supporters, a clear turnoff for swing voters.

One the question of the Conservatives claims of heightened ethical standards, Canadians aren’t buying:

On the question of ethics, 52 per cent of respondents opined that the Conservatives are the same as other parties, 29 per cent said that Tories are worse than most political parties and 16 per cent said they are better than most political parties.

It’s still pretty early to accurately gauge the fallout of this scandal, but in terms of cumulative effect, it would seem the Conservative brand has been undermined. Being viewed the same as the Liberal Party is a net negative given the previous superior posturing. Just as bad, maybe worse, is hardly a positive sign for Harper.

This one might be sticking, primarily because it feeds a developing pattern.

Unions and Pragmatism

I don't understand the criticism of the "back to work" order issued today by the Ontario government, with the help of the NDP. I don't see it as anti-union, I see it as a pragmatic response to an untenable position. My view might be somewhat different, if not for the circumstances, but the poor choices here make my view pretty simple.

You go to work Friday night, maybe an office cleaner, whatever. You rely on this service, this is your only means of transportation, for many the only financial alternative. You finish your shift, it's time to go home, but alas, an out of nowhere strike and you are stranded. No notice, no consideration, no sense of responsibility, just "we" reject the offer, we're outta here. The kicker, no picket lines, no union members on the streets decrying the injustices of the man. No, the membership is home safe and sound, while the poor bastard stranded 8 miles from home is SOL.

Most people approach this strike, based on their own philosophical arguments on the relationship between worker and employer. Rights, protection, acknowledgement, power, I know it well, I've seen it first hand, in my younger days. I've always understood the spirit, although the relevance tends to lessen as labor laws entrench rights, new initiatives further tip the pendulum.

My view now is one of pragmatism. When I see what happens at Wal-Mart, I'm 100% pro-union. When I see pretty much unskilled workers making 60 grand, a boom benefit package, all the bells and whistles, working for an employer, the city, which is essentially broke, I tend to be more on the fence. When that union walks out, despite getting, from what I can see, a very progressive package, it makes me think this union has lost touch with reality. If this was a private company, the membership would be facing layoffs, there would be no leverage, because the company is in trouble. But, this isn't the case, because what cities provide, on many levels, aren't private services, but ESSENTIAL services. That's right, the workers have an artificial job security, a built-in protection, because they provide a service which is required, whether profitable or not. With that in mind, some consideration for the people affected, some responsibility should be in order.

You have to balance the rights of the workers, with the rights of citizens to depend on a service which is essential to them. This strike would most affect those without options, those people who least deserve another kick in the teeth, from people, who in reality, are ahead on the food chain. For that reason, I have no qualms with "back to work", the situation wasn't dire, the membership clearly not exploited or treated unfairly (when I look at the package, the first word that comes to mind is SWEET).

I'm a union pragmatist, a case by case stance, appreciating the need, applauding the ideal, but also able to separate a rose from a skunk. This strike, the way it was handled, the posturing, the reckless timing, I have no qualms saying the government and the opposition moved correctly.

Indiana The "Tiebreaker"?

Barack Obama, referring to the upcoming open primary in Indiana:

"You know, Sen. Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania,” he added, “and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tiebreaker."

The "tiebreaker" comment has been seized upon, which has tended to put even more emphasis on Indiana. In retrospect, probably not terribly smart politically for Obama to raise the bar on one state, especially when you possess all the "it's over" arguments. With that said, there is really no reason why Obama can't win Indiana, when you add up the intangibles, the demographics, it really is a "fair" state for both sides.

If you look at the polls, you see a statistical deadheat, no sense that one side has any real advantage heading into the final 10 days of campaigning. What I am saying, there are no built-in excuses for either campaign, no rational reason to not see Indiana as competitive and telling.

Should Obama win in North Carolina and Indiana May 6, Clinton will be forced to drop out, it's just that simple. Should Clinton win Indiana and keep it relatively close in North Carolina, then the emerging concerns about Obama are elevated, fair agreement that we enter a real period of unknown.

I was struck by Howard Dean's recent comments, which represent a clear departure from his pre-Penn rhetoric:

The Democrats’ national chairman, Howard Dean, told The Financial Times in an article on Friday: “I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else.”

h/t Wise Law Blog

Dean basically acknowledges that the last "six or eight races" will gel "perception" about who is best suited to lead the Democrats. Who can win, as opposed to who has pledged delegates, who has popular vote. As pointed out in the link, Dean does Clinton a favor with this frame. On the other hand, as I've said all along, Obama just needs to win some crucial primaries in the last half of this primary season to end all the debate, his fate is very much in his own hands.

If the debate becomes one of electability, recent history would tend to favor Obama, the perception that he can draw independents, expand the Democrats base. As we move forward, that earlier truth is becoming less apparent, the earlier Obama advantage looks largely muted. Gallup has the race tied, with Clinton actually doing better in the head to head with McCain, for the first time that I can remember. A recent Newsweek poll, which had Obama up 19 points a week ago, is down to 7, with some concerning internals for Obama. Even more concerning, Obama's appeal to independents appears on the wane, no real advantage over Clinton:

Obama vs McCain:

Independents 45-43 for Obama

Clinton vs McCain:

Independents 45-44 for McCain

The supposed strong suit, appeal to the mushy middle, isn't really an advantage. Couple that fact with a growing problem with white voters, a disturbing racial pattern, and you may see cause for concern. Important to remember that African American voters make up a much larger percentage of Democratic primary voters, than they do a general election, nevermind the fact that in many states, the high population come in firm RED terrority.

That's the backdrop, which does lend credence to the Indiana as "tiebreaker" idea. It really provides an excellent opportunity for Obama to quell the concerns, secure the nomination, move forward. There are no real excuses, Obama has many advantages that work in his favor, enough to counter the pro-Hillary state argument. Indiana is a good measure, and I put more faith in a result there, than I do all the spin coming from both camps. Win Indiana, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania are forgotten, Obama seals the deal. Lose Indiana, delegates aside, one has to wonder what is happening, the inevitable one losing key contest after key contest to Mrs. "No Chance". That's ridiculous on every level, there is no reason why Obama shouldn't win, no reason to fluff off the later voters as somehow irrelevant.

Knock her out, or give Clinton life, ultimately Obama controls the narrative. No excuses, no spin, just win Indiana. Seems a reasonable frame, and really there is no reason why the supposed presumptive nominee shouldn't win, in a state that oozes "fair contest".

No Shame (with poll)

Quite a week for the Conservative spinsters, working so hard, getting nowhere, embarrassing themselves in the process. Maybe the worst example, Ryan Sparrow's attack on a former Conservative candidate, for committing the ultimate sin- telling the truth:

In response to former Conservative candidate Joseph Goudie:

In an affidavit sworn on Wednesday for Elections Canada, which is investigating the scheme to determine whether election laws were violated, he says: “I feel angry that I and [the] campaign team have been dragged into this mess.”

Conservative Party spokesman Ryan Sparrow says the allegations are merely gripes from a failed campaign.

“These advertisements purchased by the local campaigns were identified as such in the tag lines required by the rules for election advertising,” Mr. Sparrow wrote in an e-mail Friday. “These are people who wanted to run for the Conservative Party. They knew the program was legal. They are speaking out now – a full two years later because they lost.”

Eating your own, has it come to this?

Who's the worst of the worst:

"In And Out" And Down

A new Angus Reid online poll, which shows a noticeable swing in support, relative to a poll done one month ago. The numbers:

Conservatives 33%
Liberals 30%
NDP 20%
Greens 8%

Quite a change from the last Angus offering, and the authors of the poll attribute much of the swing to the "in and out" scandal. Angus Reid March 28:

Conservatives 36%
Liberals 26%
NDP 18%
Greens 9%

A 10 point lead for this firm, has become a statistical tie. The culprit:

A majority of those polled – 58 per cent – believe that the Conservatives' credibility has been damaged by their ongoing dispute with Elections Canada over the so-called "in and out" financing of the last election, which resulted in the RCMP raid of party headquarters more than a week ago.

I've argued for quite some time that Dion is hurt within this current strategy. This poll confirms a sense of "weakness", but it also offers a interesting statistic, which could be used in a future campaign:

The Prime Minister was rated by 51 per cent as strong and decisive, for instance, compared to only 8 per cent who see Dion that way.

An absolutely abysmal number, which translates to killing Dion slowly by abstaining. However, this finding offers a possible narrative for Dion, one that might be considered surprising, given the previous Liberal challenges with ethics. Dion's major strength, his integrity, nobody questions his honesty (see quotes from all the other party leaders). Could Dion run on a return to honest government?:

Dion does outrank Harper on being honest and trustworthy, though, with 38 per cent of respondents seeing him that way compared to 33 per cent who said they'd describe Harper that way.

That finding is all the more striking, given the overall low opinion of Dion, it shows that he has political capital when it comes to the basic question of trust. Clearly, this is Dion's strength, and if any Liberal is capable of arguing this line, it's Dion. I've always thought an election ad, with old quotes from the other leaders commenting on what an honorable man Dion is would be a powerful symbol.

The regional numbers show the same trends in Ontario others have found. The Liberals lead by 8%, when just last month Angus Reid had a tie. Interestingly, in Quebec, the parties are also tied, when just last month the Conservatives were the clear second choice (in line with CROP and Leger). This poll also shows relative gains for the Liberals in British Columbia, the NDP in the Prairies.

It's still too early to gauge the fallout of "in and out", but it might just be the issue that works in concert with things like the Cadman affair, to chip away at the government's credibility. The conclusion of this pollster, it has had a damaging effect. The good news, unless you are a Conservative, it's far from over.

"Leaders Don't Mislead"

A quote from Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch. Mr. Conacher is demanding an apology from Peter Van Loan, as well as urging the Prime Minister to strip Van Loan of some of his duties, in light of his misrepresentation of Democracy Watch's position on the "in and out" scandal. Conacher appeared on the CBC today, and the formal request is here.

Here is what Peter Van Loan said during Question Period on April 16, in response to opposition questions of illegalities:

“In terms of our spending practices, I would like to quote Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch, who was on CTV today. He said, “The Conservatives did something in the last election that all parties have done for years. That's legal, and parties can donate as much as they want to a local candidate and often do to candidates that don't have a lot of local support and can't raise money on their own. And then what happens is those candidates use some of that money to buy materials for national headquarters, like pamphlets, signs, platforms to hand out to people. That's all--”

Another question:

“Mr. Speaker, let us remember that this was a dispute initiated in the courts by the Conservative Party of Canada because of the unequal treatment of the Conservative Party compared with other parties, including the NDP, which engages in the transfer of funds between riding associations from its central party to assist in local targeted ridings. It has been going on for years. Duff Conacher said that on television. He said it is legal.”

There is no question Van Loan was using Democracy Watch as evidence to support the Conservative claim of legal use of funds. However, what Van Loan didn't reveal, Conacher actually thinks the scheme is entirely illegal and the Conservatives will lose in court.

From the CBC:

"He said that I said it was legal. In fact, that was only half of what I said. Part of it was legal, having the central part transfer money to local candidates, that is allowed under the Elections Act. But, the entire scheme, I went on to say I believed was illegal and they will lose in court. He said I said it was legal, when in fact I said it is illegal."

"He quoted half of what I said, leaving the clear impression that Democracy Watch's position was that this whole scheme is legal, when in fact Democracy Watch's position is this whole scheme was illegal and the Conservatives will lose in court, and I said that very specifically....Mr. Van Loan can't use half of what someone says and then claim that's the position of the organization, when the other half of what was said contradicts that entirely. It's a half truth, a half measure, and claiming it's the full truth. Leaders don't mislead."

What Duff doesn't realize, these people have never been leaders and will twist anything to serve their purposes.

Conacher's letter:

Either you knew the other half of what I said on Canada AM, and deliberately made a false statement, or you did not know the other half of what I said, in which case you are negligent for not checking whether I had said anything else about the situation. In either case, you made completely false public statements about Democracy Watch’s position on the situation.

As I am sure you are aware, the “Ethical Guidelines for Public Office Holders” contained in Annex G of “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State-2007” require ministers to be honest.

As well, section V.1. “Ministerial Conduct” of the Guide states:

“Ministers and Secretaries of State must act with honesty and must uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are maintained and enhanced. As public office holders, Ministers and Secretaries of State are subject to the Ethical Guidelines for Public Office Holders and Guidelines for the Political Activities of Public Office Holders, set out in Annexes G and H. Moreover, they have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny. This obligation is not fully discharged merely by acting within the law.”

The first guideline in the Annex G Ethical Guidelines is as follows:

“Ethical Standards: Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the government are conserved and enhanced.”
Therefore, I demand an apology from you for violating this guideline by falsifying Democracy Watch’s position on the Conservative Party’s TV ad election spending scheme so blatantly.

Given that you made your false statements publicly in the House of Commons, the appropriate place to make your apology to myself and Democracy Watch is also publicly in the House of Commons.

This isn't the first time the Conservatives have pulled this nonsense in the House, attributing false positions to people or organizations, when in fact their opinion is the exact opposite. People will remember Baird using a Al Gore quote to support the government, when in fact Gore was SCATHING in his criticism.

I see the need to misrepresent people, to create false allies, as a sign of desperation, an admission that you have no backing, you must project dishonesty to create an argument. It really is amazing, that Van Loan needed to use a respectable organization for cover, even though he knew full well that they rejected the claims.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology Mr. Conacher, that's not how these people operate.

Down, But Not Out

They released the pdf for the latest Decima leadership poll. Bad news all around, for both leaders, but a few things stick out. The basics:

Harper:

Opinion improved 43%
Opinion hasn't improved 53%

Dion:

Opinion improved 27%
Opinion hasn't improved 61%

Dion's numbers are worse, which isn't surprising given his present circumstance, plus the normal challenges of opposition leader. However, I find it quite interesting that the gap between Dion and Harper is largely because of the difference in partisan opinion. Almost 80% of Conservatives, within the sample, say their opinion of Harper has improved, while a mere 40% of Liberals say the same about Dion. Even more striking, 50% of Liberal opinion on Dion hasn't improved, which translates to the majority opinion.

I would argue that these feelings amongst identified Liberals are largely a function of perceived weakness. The problem isn't regional, first blush might point to Quebec, but you see the same negative impression in Ontario:

Improved 26%
Hasn't Improved 58%

A interesting result, in a province with relative strength of the Liberal brand. Others might offer different reasoning, but I see these numbers as further proof that abstaining and hiding are costing Dion personally, the rank and file aren't impressed. Sometimes this reality gets masked in favorable horserace numbers, but there is no question that Dion's image must improve, to have any chance in an election.

The good news, thank-god for Stephen Harper. Opinion on Harper is far more rigid, outside of Quebec, a much more known quantity than Dion, and decidedly disliked. Harper's numbers might look better than Dion, but they should, history provides countless parallel examples. What should really concern Conservatives, Harper's lacklustre numbers are worse, when you consider his ability to gain traction outside of Alberta, outside of his base. If you look at the numbers, Harper has done little to expand his support, make a positive impression on swing voters. The majority negative opinion of Harper helps explain why the Liberal brand remains strong, despite Dion's challenges.

If Dion can get his act together, or more fairly, present an image of strength, he actually has more potential than Harper. Harper is pretty much cemented in our minds, there is little in the way of re-invention, Harper is the known. What voters do know of Dion they don't seem to like, in overwhelming fashion, but most of this is largely superficial (Quebec aside), the numbers aren't terminal.

Nothing an election couldn't remedy ;)

Quebec Poll

A new Leger Marketing poll of Quebecer's federal voting intention. A very large sample size (1002), much larger than generally seen in the national polls, with regional results. Leger suggests some movement for the Conservatives, at the expense of the Liberals:

Bloc 33%
Conservatives 29%
Liberals 21%
NDP 12%
Greens 4%

The last Leger Marketing poll was done in February, with a much smaller sample size (360):

Bloc 35%
Liberals 27%
Conservative 21%
NDP 11%
Greens 6%

Two possible factors for the flip between the federalist parties- the negative press surrounding the Quebec wing of the federal Liberals and the recent sponsorship arrest. That said, this latest poll puts Liberal support exactly where it was in the 2006 election, so it isn't a hopeless result.

The last CROP Quebec poll showed a dead heat between the Cons and Bloc, but since then all other polls haven't replicated this result. Leger comes close, and the large sample lends credibility to the results. I'm still somewhat tentative, because if you look at the Leger results for the past year, you see support wavering back and forth between the Libs and Cons, Bloc fairly stable. That tells me, there is plenty of fluidity, soft support that could move in an election campaign. That sentiment doesn't translate to no appreciation of the challenges the Liberal brand faces in Quebec.

On the sovereignty front, only 31% of Quebecers support independence. Even more surprising, amongst PQ supporters 45% think the party should seek to improve the position of Quebec within Canada, 50% think the party should persue independence. I saw a scenario where Harper uses this type of sentiment to argue his approach to federalism has been successful, the need for the Bloc less persuasive.

"Something Fishy Or Not Quite Right Here"

The above, from another former Conservative candidate, Joe Goudie, commenting on the "in and out" scandal today on the CBC. You know, with all the distractions, you simply have to focus on what CONSERVATIVES are saying about their own party's behavior. Joe Goudie, in his own words (I can't confirm if the video was doctored):

"We received some instructions from the federal campaign indicating that two thousand plus dollars would be put into our account and that this money was to be immediately transferred back to the federal Conservative campaign."


"They sent an email, outlining exactly the procedure we were to follow to make sure that the money was sent back"

"We were advised that of that two thousand and some odd dollars, we could actually claim 60% of it in our election return, but we didn't"

Reporter: Why not?

"Because my official agent Gordon Barnes, thank god for his astuteness thought there was something FISHY OR NOT QUITE RIGHT HERE. He had a number of discussions with Elections Canada and decided no we are not going to claim it"

Goudie didn't apply for the 60% back because it was "fishy or not quite right". That's not Elections Canada, that's not the Liberals, that's not the RCMP, that's not the liberal media, that's a CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE smelling a rat, or more accurately Gordon Barnes. Hello in there Conservative apologists, HELLO INDEED.

At the beginning of the clip, Newman said the following:

"Joe Goudie ran for the Conservatives in Labrador. Goudie said the party contacted him twice in the last few months and asked him not to talk to the media"

I found this article from two days ago, where Goudie said:

Goudie said he was unaware until Tuesday morning of any problems with election spending. He said he found out in a coffee shop in Labrador.

Goudie said he will track down his official agent and campaign manager to see if any money flowed in and out of his campaign.

Obviously Mr. Goudie was aware of some issues, because he acknowledged previous calls from the party to keep quiet, don't talk to the media. Seems pretty simple, today Goudie has decided to break his silence and speak about what he knew. Why the party would want him to keep quiet, despite not claiming a rebate, speaks volumes about a concerted cover-up.

You know what? People like Steve Janke can exhaust hours poking holes at Elections Canada. People like Pierre Poilievre, Rory Sparrow, Bernard Lord and all the other snake oil salesman can peddle their nonsense to the press. However, if you just stay focused on the main stage, you find all you need from the comments of Conservatives themselves, these partisans thought something was wrong, these people were concerned about the tactics, these people tell us that something was clearly afoot. Everything else is noise. "Fishy" is right, you can't talk away the STENCH.

Shouldn't Be A Problem, Should It?

One thing about innocent people, they have nothing to hide. With that in mind, I expect a Conservative press release any minute, endorsing the Liberals "in and out" demands. I mean, this shouldn't be a problem, because after all, everything was legal:

Following the RCMP raid on Conservative Party headquarters and the revelations contained in both the affidavit and media reports, Mr. LeBlanc demanded the Conservative government:

1) Publicly release all ads and details of where and when the ads ran for the 67 candidates named by Elections Canada as participants in the “in-and-out” scheme. The Liberal Opposition has only been able to identify 38 that actually had an ad produced with their tagline on it.

2) In order to maintain public confidence while investigations are pending, suspend all political officials alleged to be connected to this scheme from their government duties, including Conservative MP Lawrence Cannon, Harper’s Deputy Chief of Staff Patrick Muttart, and Michael Donison, Senior Policy Advisor to Government House Leader Peter Van Loan.

3) Call in the RCMP to review all matters of this scheme that may involve the Criminal Code – in particular, to examine concerns by Elections Canada of document altering – and ensure that all Conservatives fully cooperate by disclosing all relevant facts and documentation.

4) Direct the 67 candidates and order them to cooperate fully with Elections Canada, and encourage any other candidates not named in the probe to come forward with any information that may assist Elections Canada in their investigation. Of the 18 interviews Elections Canada asked for, only two candidates obliged.

5) Let the Procedure and House Affairs Committee meet – without any Conservative filibustering – and conduct hearings on this matter.

This would be a great opportunity to clear the air, put this witchhunt to an end. The Committee itself would provide an excellent opportunity for Canadians to see how Elections Canada over-stepped their bounds, behaved badly, singling out the poor Conservatives, we could all see how "everybody does it".

Get all the candidates on record, release the media buy details, let the RCMP investigate I say. When they find nothing, everything done properly, then we will see who has egg on their face, who has "co-operated" from the beginning. The Liberals have provided the Conservatives with a gift, a path to expose the real story here, clear their good names.

I will update this post when the Conservatives release their statement, agreeing to these small, reasonable demands. Should be any minute.

UPDATE:

Nothing yet, I'm sure it's just a faulty fax machine or something.

UPDATE 2:

Probably just letting the Liberals wait, they're strategic and crafty you know.

Why I Don't Like Harper

In response to this post I thought I would add my two cents on the topic. I don't like Harper, primarily because I think he is fraud, the present a constructed calculation based on self-interest, with little regard for consequence.

Stephen Harper doesn't care a lick about Quebec, or Quebecers, any measure or outreach is simply a recognition of what is required to attain, keep or expand power. When he speaks of de-centralization, provincial jurisdiction, it all stems from the belief that Quebec has too much power in the federation, it's origin is actually anti-Quebec, as opposed to the presentation of greater flexibility.

Stephen Harper has the audacity to run on openness and transparency, market himself as progressive in that regard, and then when in office, institute the most repressive and stifling regime in Canadian history. No access to information, no access to the media, no access to MP's, no ability for anyone to speak freely, outside of pre-determined and approved talking points. The man who presented himself as the champion of open government, is in fact Stalinist in his approach.

Stephen Harper runs government, as though he is packaging a product and we are his potential consumer. Rather than develop sound policy, preference is given to measures which produce the desired perception, which can be sold. Expert opinion is largely irrelevant, empirical evidence is less persuasive than the idea of vote potential. Decisions are more about what is good for the Conservative Party politically, than they are what is good for the country.

Stephen Harper isn't a builder, his entire political career is predicated on negativity. Any ideas are developed in reaction to a perceived undesirable, a pessimism towards many of our institutions, a anger towards political foes, more about tearing down than moving forward. Stephen Harper hates the Liberals, he loves the gutter, he wants to destroy rather than compare and contrast. Anything that gets in Harper's way is subject to brutal assassination, threats, attacking without consideration for consequence, an inherent meanness.

It's not that Stephen Harper is a conservative, my dislike isn't necessarily kneejerk. I liked Joe Clark, I liked Peter Loughheed, I liked Bill Davis, I like John McCain. Philosophical agreement isn't entirely a pre-requisite for respect or acknowledgement of principled position. I don't like Stephen Harper because I don't like the approach, I don't see authenticity, I don't agree with the tactics or the motivations. I don't like Stephen Harper because he's a false prophet, what you see is edited fiction, a recipe for maximum digestion. The Harper model doesn't appeal to the best in people, it relies on divisions, it uses fear to force compliance, it requires an enemy, a foe, to find it's own union.

Electoral Math Fun

What if, the Democrats ran their primaries and caucuses in similar fashion to the Republicans? Most of the Republican contests were winner take all, which provides a much more neat process, similar to the system employed in the general election. I thought this was an interesting way to breakdown this race, using the Electoral College formula for state designation. I've calculated all the states, won by Obama and Clinton, with the winner take all Electoral College approach. If you exclude Florida and Michigan entirely, you get these results:

Clinton 244 electoral votes

Obama 203 electoral votes


If you include Florida and Michigan, which no one disputes would have been Clinton victories, you get the following:

Clinton 288 electoral votes

Obama 203 electoral votes

If the Democrats had employed the Electoral College math, with winner take all states, the race would already be over, Clinton the clear victor. I post this out of curiousity, rather than a realistic argument. However, it is noteworthy, given that it employs the same system used to elect a president, and has the same breakdowns, similar to how the Republicans conduct their primaries and caucuses. If only Hillary was running for the GOP ;)

If It's Over, Then...

If you confine yourself to the math, not much changed last night in the Democratic race. However, there is no denying that Clinton did what see needed to last night, a big victory if one is being fair. Despite being largely outspent, despite persistent commentary that gave her no chance, despite calls to bow out, despite pressure for people to lineup behind Obama, despite all that Clinton beat Obama in fairly convincing fashion.

I don’t buy into the notion that Clinton should have won, because the state played to her demographic. If you look at the exit polls, you will find, that with the exception of African Americans, her demographics consist of the Democratic base, the crucial segments that will make or break an election campaign. Strange to say that carrying the rank and file of the party is inconsequential, that she “should” win those votes. People assumed Clinton would win Pennsylvania, based on previous results, which really means Obama has trouble with core Democrats. People keep fluffing off these victories, but they consistently show strength for Clinton, in states which are central to any potential victory in the fall. Have we reached the point where Obama can’t win, unless he has over-representation of African Americans in a state?

Here’s my deal with the race, numbers aside. Since Super Tuesday, Clinton has won three crucial primaries, despite being outspent and facing long odds. There is tremendous pressure to get behind a nominee and prepare for the fall election. Despite that environment, Clinton continues to thrive, there is no sense that people are rallying behind Obama, at least not the voters anyways. What is happening now, is in some respects more important that what happened two months ago. Voters know more, further information is available, events have occurred, the questions are clearer. If you are standing here today, and the goal is beating McCain, what is more important Iowa or Pennsylvania, South Carolina or Ohio?

Why can’t Obama close the deal? Why is that the voters, with full knowledge of the circumstance (a majority last night thought Obama would be the nominee) still vote for Clinton? Clinton didn’t just squeak by last night, she won by a healthy margin, and she won despite having “no chance”. That fact to me is remarkable, spin aside, quite telling. The Obama camp argument that Pennsylvania is “her” state, is really an admission that the majority of traditional Democratic voters tend to favor Clinton. In primaries, in states that Democrats need to carry, Clinton seems to have an advantage. That is okay with everyone, that isn’t indicative of some underlying problem?

My counter to “it’s over” has always been “just win baby”. If Obama is the presumptive nominee, if Clinton is finished, then it should translate in the voter booth. The simple fact of the matter, Obama hasn’t closed the deal, Clinton continues to do what she needs to, in order to survive. Yes, Clinton still trails in delegates, and she probably can’t catch him, but that reality should make her victories less likely, that math should work against her in the NOW. Why it doesn’t manifest itself with voters, why she continues to march forward, why Obama still struggles with core constituents, those are important questions moving forward.

It's A Beautiful Thing

H/T to Buckdog.

I thought I'd post this radio interview here, so Libloggers can also enjoy listening to Pierre Poilievre get absolutely DESTROYED.


A beautiful thing.

"These Guys Can't Even Tell The Difference Between Right And Wrong"

This ad brought to you, while the Conservatives were "cheating". In fact, you may have seen this ad, as a direct result of the "cheating". The kicker, they wanted YOU to pay for it. Right and wrong?

Shut Up Pierre

If there is a more annoying Conservative MP than Pierre Poilievre let me know. In another sign of thin Conservative ranks, Poilievre seems to have been chosen as the point man to defend the "in and out" scandal. This morning Poilievre was on Canada AM, making the usual weak excuses, attacking Elections Canada, bringing up the Liberal camera, the usual, decidedly lame retorts, that have nothing to do with the allegations themselves. Fair enough I suppose, when you have nothing, you are forced to work the margins and try to create diversion. The funniest thing Poilievre said was:

"We think that in a free country, candidates decide what goes in their materials, and not a government bureaucrat."

How high-minded, even if it isn't true. I guess Pierre forgot about the part where the candidates actually didn't decide:

"Conservative candidates and their official agents knew next to nothing about election advertising that their campaigns had helped pay for, Elections Canada discovered during its probe of the party's in-and-out financing scheme.

They scratched their heads trying to recall details of the ad-buying arrangement orchestrated by the party's headquarters. Several simply remember Conservative officials telling them money would land in their accounts, cash that must be swiftly returned to Ottawa."

"Candidates decide what goes into their materials"? Hmmm:

"In the B.C. riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan, for example, Conservative candidate Norm Snowden was in a tough fight against NDP incumbent Jean Crowder. Mr. Snowden's campaign, along with other Conservative campaigns on Vancouver Island, had received the request from national headquarters to consider participating in the "in-and-out" proposal.

Mr. Snowden's campaign sent $8,089.20 to the national office for the ads which would be seen by Mr. Snowden's potential voters. Next door, the Conservative campaign in Esquimalt, running against incumbent Keith Martin, sent in $9,999.15.

But the ads that the national party bought and placed in the Vancouver Island market were anti-Liberal ads. Mr. Snowden's campaign was furious. They weren't fighting the Liberals in Nanaimo-Cowichan, they were fighting the NDP. To them, the $8,000 they'd sent to national headquarters was a waste of money they could have spent on local ads attacking Ms. Crowder."

You know what? It's time for Conservatives to just accept some blame here, own up to pushing the envelope and take their lumps. I can't listen to "ankle biters" (h/t knb) like Poilievre employ the scorched earth defence, wherein the only option is too cast doubt on institutions that form the foundation of our democracy. Elections Canada isn't biased, anyone with any objectivity can see that their evidence of a co-ordinated scheme to circumvent the election laws for partisan advantage is sound. Other parties didn't do the same thing, because there is only one party under investigation, only one party engaged in this technique, only one party who's own MP's were concerned about the practice, only one party who presented doctored documentation.

Isn't it ironic, that at the exact same moment in history that Harper's Conservatives were telling Canadians that we needed a return to honest, ethical government, they were in fact "cheating" for their own self-interest, laying waste to fundamental fairness. Even worse, some of those ads on accountability, that people across the country viewed, where actually the by-product of unethical behavior. Dishonest behavior to tell Canadians they were honest.

Put a sock in it Pierre.

See A Pattern?

Here is a list of the 67 Conservative candidates that participated in the Conservative in an out scheme. A clear pattern of funneling money into uncompetitive ridings, or very safe seats, and then returning it for what is assumed battleground "regions". The only exception is Quebec, but important to remember the Conservatives had little organization in that province at the time, operating with scant resources, which meant the "max" was rarely meant:

NEWFOUNDLAND:

Hynes- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Goudie- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Downey- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

PEI:

Noble- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

NOVA SCOTIA:

House- NDP incumbent, NDP won

Campbell- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Khosla- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

NEW BRUNSWICK:

Leger- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Doucet- Liberal incumbent retired, Liberal won

QUEBEC:

Blaney- Bloc incumbent, Conservative won

Laberge- Bloc incumbent, Bloc won

Boucher- Bloc incumbent, Conservative won

Petit- Bloc incumbent, Conservative won

Harvey- Bloc incumbent, Conservative won

Verner-Bloc incumbent, Conservative won

Boisvert- Bloc incumbent, Bloc won

Helie-Lambert- Bloc incumbent, Bloc won

Gorde- Bloc incumbent, Conservative won

Bruce- Bloc incumbent, Bloc won

Bernier- Liberal retired, Conservative won

Pineault- Bloc incumbent, Bloc won

Paradis- Bloc incumbent, Conservative won

Landry- Bloc incumbent, Bloc won

Lambert- Bloc incumbent, Bloc won

Nadeau- Bloc incumbent, Bloc won

Paine- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Drabkin- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

MacKenzie- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Rae- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Alam- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Poirier- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won

Cannon- Liberal incumbent, Conservative won

ONTARIO:

West- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won, Conservative third

Leskowski- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won, Conservative third

Graham- NDP incumbent, NDP won, Conservative third

Bowers- Liberal incumbent (Redman), Liberal won, Conservative second

Majkot- Liberal incumbent, Libera won by 20 000, Conservative second

James- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won by 12 000, Conservative second

Rodrigues- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won, Conservative distant third

Klufas- Liberal incumbent, NDP won, Conservative distant third

Clausen- NDP incumbent (Layton), NDP won, Conservative distant third

Goldstein- Liberal incumbent, NDP won, Conservative distant third

Halicki- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won, Conservative distant third

Mailer- Independent retired, NDP won, Conservative third

Davidson- Liberal incumbent, Conservative won

Teshuba- NDP incumbent, NDP won, Conservative distant third

Manitoba:

Sterzer- NDP incumbent, NDP won, Conservative distant third

SASKATCHEWAN:

Anderson- Conservative incumbent, Conservative won with 70% of vote

Harrison- Conservative incumbent, Liberal won

BRITISH COLUMBIA:

Harris- Conservative incumbent, Conservative won 50% of vote

Cannan- Conservative retired, Conservative won 50% of vote

Abbott- Conservative incumbent, Conservative won 55% of vote

Day- Conservative incumbent, Conservative won 55% of vote

Mayes- Conservative retired, Conservative won 45% of vote

Hill- Conservative incumbent, Conservative won, 60% of vote

Drazenovic- NDP incumbent, NDP won, Conservative third

Dalton- NDP incumbent, NDP won, Conservative third

Pagtakhan- NDP incumbent, NDP won, Conservative distant third

Wong- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won, Conservative distant third

Sowden- NDP incumbent, NDP won, Conservative second

DeSouza- Liberal incumbent, Liberal won, Conservative third


James made this comment on his blog:

I'm gonna bet, in Ontario, those on the list finished third in their ridings.

Not far off James ;)

What I see here, with VERY few exceptions, the Conservatives topped off ridings that weren't in play, in order to use that money where it could make a difference. The above supports the idea that this extra money was very important for Conservative fortunes, spent in targeted regions, it could very well have made a difference, as suggested by both the Liberals and NDP.

"Purer Than The Driven Snow"

Tons of commentary, but I thought these quotes pretty much sum up what "in and out" ultimately means for the Conservatives:

Ned Franks, professor emeritus of political studies at Queen's University, said he expects the allegations will taint the Conservative brand.

“Really, it's a loss of face issue because the Conservatives campaigned on being purer than the driven snow and then they get brought up in their tracks by Elections Canada who say you've misinterpreted the act,” Mr. Franks said.

“You can't both claim that you are purer than the driven snow, have a lawsuit against Elections Canada, get your offices raided where possibly some incriminating material is found, and appeal to the electorate on consistency and superior moral principles.”

Yellow snow?

I read most of affidavit, and the most striking part is the co-ordination, candidates specifically given instruction from Conservative Party headquarters, on how to move the money back and forth. Interestingly, some candidates smelled a skunk and sought reassurance:

"I had contacted the Conservative Party in Ottawa and was re-assured that this was OK. As a bookkepper I know that sometimes you have to use creative accounting between two small companies, but I found this move was being a little too creative"

Ms. Barbro Soderber York South-Weston candidate.

Another candidate seemed to understand entirely:

"I do seem to recall a wash in and out of our account. I do seem to remember an entry of 6 500 and then it was taken out again. This is what I mean by a wash."

Garreth McDonald Winnipeg-North candidate

The Liberals are floating the idea that this scheme puts the election results into question. Interestingly, NDP MP Pat Martin echoes that sentiment:

"That $1 million frankly could have bought the election," Pat Martin, the NDP ethics critic, said Sunday. "That's a really big advertising buy in a very close, razor-thin difference in a federal election."

So, we can add another footnote to history. Not only did Harper only manage a very fragile minority, despite optimal conditions, a "kick the bum's out" sentiment, a timely RCMP smear on Goodale, but he needed to cheat to do it. I'm impressed.

Let's Stay Focused

Okay, Monday is going to be a spinorama of biblical proportions. All the usual suspects will be out, pointing to nefarious aspects, diversion, counters, basically a maelstorm of bullshitification. Just remember one thing:

The agent for the federal Conservative Party in the last general election "made materially false and misleading statements" on its financial returns, Canada's elections commissioner alleges in the court documents...

Allegedly, people knowingly LIED.

There's the beacon in the rolling Con fog.