The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Jim Flaherty might just be the Liberals biggest asset in Ontario. Despite every pollster in agreement, Flaherty's assaults on McGuinty are backfiring with the electorate, these politically tone deaf Tories continue with the rhetoric:

Ontario is on track to become a "have-not" province within two to three years, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says.

"I'm quite concerned with the weakening of the Ontario economy," Flaherty said yesterday.

"If this continues -- this is not hyperbole, this is a fact -- Ontario will become a 'have- not' province in confederation.

"And it will be Premier (Dalton) McGuinty's legacy that he in two terms took Ontario from being the strongest economic province in the federation to a 'have-not' province," he said.

And on, and on, and on...


An error of almost herculian proportions, Flaherty continues to make the fight personal, offering absurdity to Ontarians, that everything is McGuinty's fault. Nobody forgets the speaker is the same man who left Ontario in debt, part of a very unpopular "revolution".

People can debate the merit in Flaherty's arguments for eternity, the fact of the matter, the Conservatives just reinforce the image of mean-spirited, divisive politics, more interested in bashing than working together. Common sense dictates that the federal government will never win in a feud with a provincial Premier, especially one that just won another majority. Rather than put McGuinty on the defensive, Flaherty gives him a platform to champion Ontario, against a hostile federal government. Any reading of Canadian history shows that calling out a relatively stable Premier never works to the feds advantage. In fact, it usually results in a rallying around the "locals".

By more than 2-1 Ontarians favor McGuinty over Flaherty/Harper in this war of words. Four polling outfits show erosion for the Conservatives in Ontario, with two on record citing Flaherty as partial cause. And yet, the heated language continues, the fight personal, all the while cementing a negative frame for the Conservatives. I have to laugh at it all, because Jim Flaherty is really, for the Liberals, the gift that just keeps on giving.

Different Numbers, Same Trends

Two new polls today, both of which are worrying for the Conservatives, potentially good news for the Liberals. Decima shows a deadheat, while Strategic Counsel has a large lead for the Conservatives. I'll explain why I think both polls are good for the Liberals, first blush aside.

First the numbers:

Decima:

The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey had support for both the major federal parties flatlining at 32 per cent.

The NDP was at 17 per cent, the Bloc Québécois 9 per cent and the Green party was at 8 per cent.

Strategic Counsel:

Tories had the support of 38 per cent of the electorate, down only one point from last month. The Stéphane Dion-led Liberals remained static at 27 per cent, while the NDP jumped two points to 14 per cent and the Greens stayed the same at 12.

Decima actually has the Liberals up 32-30 in there last week of polling. Of note, the Conservatives were as high as 35% four weeks ago, Liberals unchanged.

Where is the good news in the Strategic Counsel poll? National results can tend to skew seat totals, and in this poll, we see that the Conservatives ridiculous support in Alberta, and other parts of the west, are skewing the national results, leaving a false impression. Last month, SC basically had the same national results, but in the regionals we saw the Conservatives ahead 42-34 in Ontario, beating the Liberals 22-19 in Quebec. Things have changed, and when you factor these results, any perceived Conservative "lead" is less impressive:

In Ontario, the Tories are marginally ahead of the Liberals, 37-34...

In Quebec, the Tories enjoy the support of 20 per cent of voters, compared with the Liberals, at 23 per cent.

Trending down in Ontario, now in third in Quebec. Certainly not the majority numbers the national presentation entertains. One caveat for Conservative supporters, Strategic Counsel, while it recognizes erosion in Ontario, it is the only pollster to still give them a lead. In fact, Ipsos, Nanos and Decima all give the Liberals large leads, so SC would appear an outlier.

Decima:

In Ontario, Liberals lead with 43 per cent, followed by the Conservatives at 32, the NDP at 14 and the Greens at nine....

In Quebec, the survey put the Bloc on top with 37 per cent support, followed by the Liberals at 27, the Tories at 19, NDP at 12 and Greens with four.

One month ago, Decima had the Tories and Liberals tied in Ontario at 40%, Tories tied in Quebec 23-22%. There has been erosion every since, to the point now, supported by other polls, where the numbers actually suggest a Liberal government.

Strategic Counsel overstates the Conservative support in Ontario, and this may explain part of the national lead. However, watching the trends with a particular outfit, you see that SC isn't much different from Decima, both show the Conservatives falling in Ontario and the Liberals rebounding somewhat in Quebec. In fact, every single national pollster has shown the same trends, making the prospects good that this is real movement.

Decima's Anderson was on Newman's show today, talking about his poll. He mentioned Cadman, and said he thought that had cost the Conservatives "a couple points". Interestingly, while SC tries to downplay Cadman, we get this admission:

The pollsters said the Liberals should not give up on the Cadman issue, as there may be some underlying weakness to exploit.

Overall, these are good numbers for the Liberals, and nobody should be afraid of the Strategic Counsel results, once you break it down. Two polls, both with encouraging signs, relative to their past findings.

By-Election No Spin Attempt

Sifting through the spin from last night, it seems there are a few objective truths buried beneath the partisan stench. I thought I'd do this analysis on a party by party basis.

I hardly think the Liberals getting thumped in a riding they once held, coupled with a prospects of a recount in a supposed "stronghold", represents a banner night. The victories in Toronto were great, and the margins were very impressive. But, the Toronto results are about as relevant to the big picture as the Conservatives winning in Calgary. That said, the real bonus for the Liberals, having two more high profile MP's in Parliament, giving the "team" great depth.

I would describe last night as a so-so proposition for the Liberals, bordering on disappointing. Yes, 3/4 seats won, but barely, and it still represents a net loss of 1 to the Conservatives.

Losing in Saskatchewan isn't a surprise, but the margin is noteworthy, and the reasons for don't paint Dion, or his tactics, in a particularly good light. Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River was handled poorly from the start, and in many ways, the Liberals lost this seat through their own actions.

In isolation, you can probably deal with Saskatchewan, but once you factor in the result in Vancouver Quadra, any talk of "a big night" for the Liberals should really evaporate. Yes, by-elections are tricky animals, but to go from a 20 plus % win in 2006, to basically a deadheat is a very disappointing result. Another supposed "safe" seat, proves to be anything but, which raises questions, beyond some convenient excuses.

I'm not suggesting a horrible evening for the Liberals, but to claim momentum out of these by-elections is a little too optimistic, and very selective, for my tastes. A net nothing for the Liberals, all things considered.

To my mind, the big loser from last night was the NDP. Battling for third place in three ridings should be a wakeup call to NDP strategists. The NDP likes to position itself as a different alternative to the two major parties, but clearly, voters who seek change, aren't drawn to the NDP, in fact they are looking elsewhere. People can play with the numbers, argue no erosion, but you still can't escape the optics of a dogfight for third, which used to be a given on the bottom end.

On the flip side, the big winner last night was clearly the Greens, who once again proved that they are establishing a beachhead with Canadians, shedding the "fringe" label. The biggest hurdle for the Greens, show real relevance to voters, last night was another important step in looking credible.

I would also say last night was a fairly good one for the Conservatives. On Tuesday, we now have one more Conservative MP than we did on Monday, hard to spin that as a negative. The fact that the Conservatives came within a whisker in a Liberal urban stronghold, offers some encouragement, a positive development. Obviously, getting no traction in Toronto maintains a common negative theme, but these two riding were always coronations, given the actors.

My scorecard, based on expectations:

Greens A
Cons B
Libs B-
NDP C-

Canada Should Boycott Olympic Games In China

How can Canada send its athletes to a country that has no respect for human rights, suppresses freedom, and just flat out murders people:




Canada should take a stand, because everything this country supposedly stands for on the international stage, is presently being mocked, in the most heinous way.

The main rationale for having the games in China, the thinking it would move the government forward, the international attention would bring some reform. What has become painfully obvious, the world will celebrate sport, give China a platform, while people are tortured and killed. Quite a backdrop. What a disgrace. It's actually a pretty easy call when you think about it, Canada should boycott the games in Beijing.

Then And Now

The other day, I posted on the disconnect between what the Conservatives are saying now on Cadman, as opposed to what was written by Tom Flanagan.

Apparently, I'm not alone.

A Game Of Expectations

Heading into the four by-elections tomorrow, the biggest challenge for the Liberals is meeting pre-determined expectations. How the results are spun by the media is the key, and in many ways it's a no win scenario.

Should the Liberals manage to win all four ridings, then the result meets expectation, a fairly positive development. I actually see the quality of candidates entering Parliament as the biggest plus to Liberal fortunes, but a sweep maintains the status quo, a restless media declawed. Win all four, then the Liberals have maintained the brand, pretty photo-ops of all the shiny new MP's. You could even argue the Liberals receive some momentum, making an election more likely.

Where it gets tricky, and it isn't necessarily fair, is if the Liberals only manage to win 3 out of the 4. The two ridings in Ontario, and the one in Vancouver Quadra, are safe seats, reasonable to expect victory. The riding in Saskatchewan, however, is anything but a sure thing, in fact it always has been a 50/50 proposition for the Liberals. That said, there is the optics of a potential seat loss, which is magnified when you consider the hand-picked candidate, a direct connection to Dion. Again, if we are being fair in our analysis, a Liberal loss really isn't significant, or telling, but I fear the media will see it differently, at the very least an "okay" night for the Liberals, at worst some questions.

Should it happen, that the Liberals were to lose in Saskatchewan and in British Columbia, then you have the worst case scenario, which opens up a whole host of unattractive possibilities. We can debate the "wacky" quality of by-elections, low turnout, but that is really irrelevant to the frame- Liberals suffer two loses, another "safe seat" gone. In many ways, this is a more troubling development than Outremont, mostly because it reinforces that result, a more wide ranging pattern developed. There would be a media shitstorm of the highest order and we all know the angles.

Should be a fascinating night.

"It was common knowledge among Tory MPs at the time that Mr. Cadman was concerned about his life insurance policy."

One of the chief defences for the Conservatives, the idea that Chuck Cadman, a dying man, was offered a life insurance policy, is simply illogical. Apologists point to the fact that no company would offer a terminally ill man life insurance, that fact alone renders the charges ridiculous. An interesting article today on the Cadman affair, which extracts a few interesting quotes from former MP's, who aren't under the gag order, so common with these new Conservatives. Here is what a couple of Cadman's former colleagues think of the story:

Some of Mr. Hanger’s old colleagues from the Reform days — former MPs who knew Mr. Cadman well — believe that someone offered Mr. Cadman something, and that the powers that be in the Conservative party will try to prevent anyone from finding out what.

Randy White and Val Meredith are so confident in the integrity of the Cadmans that they speak about the million-dollar offer as if it were fact.

"It doesn’t surprise me that an attempt was made," Ms. Meredith said in a telephone interview.

"It’s the logical sort of thing to have done."

Mr. White, who persuaded Mr. Cadman to run for the Reform party in the first place, has no doubt an offer was made.

"If Chuck Cadman says someone made him an offer like that, an offer like that was made," he said.

"Chuck Cadman was not in any way, shape or form the kind of person who would mislead anybody."

Ms. Meredith doesn't think the charges ridiculous, she calls an offer "logical".

The most telling sentence in the article, which might explain why these former MP's accept the insurance bribe as fact:

It was common knowledge among Tory MPs at the time that Mr. Cadman was concerned about his life insurance policy. In the event of an election, if he didn’t run, the policy’s payout to his wife would be cut in half. Some Tories may have wanted to let Mr. Cadman know he shouldn’t worry about that, Mr. Wood (John Reynolds aide) says.

It was "common knowledge" that Cadman had concerns about his life insurance. Within that environment, the ridiculousness of a "financial consideration" becomes far more believable, and this probably explains why former colleagues so easily take the allegation as truth.

It's really common sense. You are trying to secure Cadman's vote, and as such, you are looking for ways to leverage his support. Everyone knows that Cadman's chief concern is the risk in losing half of his insurance policy, as the result of an election. If one wanted to allay those fears, then is it so outlandish to think that his concern might be addressed? We don't need to debate the practicalities of such a policy, all we need to understand, where conditions such, that people might make a financial offer to sway Cadman, alleviate his concerns? Isn't it just WAY too coincidental that everyone knew Cadman was concerned about his life insurance, and then it just so happens that Cadman tells his family that an insurance offer was made?

I find it quite telling, that those who haven't been muzzled by the PMO, people who served with Cadman at the time, partisans, have no problem whatsoever believing an offer was made.

Selling A Mirage

The apologists love to downplay any criticism of Baird's greenhouse gas plan. "Environmental activists", "socialist crusaders", people with a political stake, who are unfair, failing to recognize the "tough" measures put in place. Anybody who is paying attention knows that Baird is a lingustic fraud, his actions more mirage than substance. Within that reality, it is quite interesting that Baird's own department has concluded:

Alberta's oilsands industry will be allowed to triple its annual greenhouse-gas pollution over the next decade, and more than 20 per cent of emissions from the rest of the oilpatch will be exempt from Prime Minister Stephen Harper government's green plan, revealed Environments Canada documents released this week.

New provisions introduced into the climate change plan would allow oilsands operations in Alberta and the coal-fired power plants of Ontario to offset 100 per cent of their pollution by paying themselves "pre-certified investments."

Meantime, Environment Canada has confirmed that millions of tonnes of pollution from small facilities will be exempt for companies in sectors such as oil and gas, natural gas pipelines, electricity, chemicals and fertilizers.

A department estimate in December predicted about 10 million tonnes of greenhouse-gas pollution would not be covered as a result of the exemptions proposed to reduce administrative burdens on the smaller companies, including 20 to 30 per cent of emissions from small oil and gas companies outside of the oilsands sector.

Shariff said it appeared the government has introduced loopholes that were tailor-made to help out oilpatch companies and coal-fired power plants.

Absolutely staggering, that Canada's number one producer of greenhouse gases will be allowed to triple its output in the next ten years. How can anyone take seriously a plan which allows this to happen?

This reaction pretty much says it all:

"It's an interesting flexibility mechanism. We're intrigued and we will be looking at it," said Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

No mention if Mr. Alvarez was doing cartwheels when he spoke.

Baird's plan isn't a plan, it's a public relations ruse. No reasonable person can look at the conclusions of Environment Canada and feel otherwise. What a joke.

"I look forward to seeing the Leader of the Opposition actually let this go to trial so he can hear the whole truth and admit his own role in it."

Stephen Harper, yesterday in Question Period. Harper can't wait to hear Dion in court, defending his role. Only trouble with that wish:

Liberal MPs could invoke parliamentary privilege to delay testifying in the prime minister's libel suit over bribery allegations - a tactic Stephen Harper himself has used before.

Harper invoked parliamentary privilege last year after longtime Tory Alan Riddell sued him and the Conservative party for allegedly libelling him during the last federal election.

Canadian courts have ruled that parliamentarians aren't compelled to appear at legal proceedings while the House of Commons is in session.
Nor do they have to appear 40 days after the end of a session, or 40 days before the next one begins.
That narrows the window when an MP might be compelled to testify. Sessions only end when elections are called or when the government prorogues Parliament.

It's actually kind of comical, Harper makes threats, then backs down, Harper tells Dion to be weary, but seems to forget the precedent he set, hiding from the courts.

The best part, this story, which just rehashes the entire affair, only makes it to publication because of Harper's libel suit. Harper, the strategic genius, throws a few logs on a fire.

One suggestion, when asked by reporters, the Liberals should refer to the parliamentary privilege angle as the "Harper Defence". Too rich for words.

As an aside, Kady O'Malley has a great post on the bumbling pointman for the Conservatives, James Moore.

Reconcile This

One of the main lines of defence, reiterated over and over by the Conservatives, Chuck Cadman was offered help in an re-election bid. When confronted with the absurdity in logic, Conservative MP James Moore has responded with the following:

"Mr. Speaker, the only offer was the one I mentioned yesterday, and on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and last week. We wanted Chuck to run for the Conservative Party.

" Mr. Cadman was offered any help he needed to be re-elected as a Conservative."

"Mr. Speaker, the specific offer given to Chuck Cadman, the specific offer of May 19 had three components: first, to rejoin the Conservative caucus; second, we would help him secure the Conservative Party nomination; and third, we would support him in his re-election in whatever financial help he might need getting re-elected as a Conservative candidate. Those are the three elements he received.

"the only offer made to Chuck Cadman was our desire to have him run for us in the campaign, and for him to be the Conservative candidate in that election. That is the central fact of this."

The central fact, according to Moore, the offer was a return to caucus and help during a election. Moore has also argued that only three people were in the room, when the offer was made, we should take their word for it. Tom Flanagan was in the room, a central figure. When you read Flanagan's book, you see that the idea of a re-election is patently ridiculous:

May 19 (the infamous meeting):

Chuck was gracious when he received us in his Parliamentary office, but he was visibly tired, and I could see that he wasn’t up to negotiating a return to caucus.”

Nevermind, not up to fighting for re-election, Cadman, according to Flanagan, wasn't even up to discussing a return to caucus.

Flanagan, had a very real sense of Cadman's health:

“Doug Finley wanted to make one last attempt to persuade Cadman to rejoin the Conservative caucus, but Chuck was very sick with skin cancer—he would be dead in two months—and wasn’t answering his phone.”

"Dead in two-months", and yet we are to believe the same man who thought this, was so detached from reality, that an offer for re-election would be feasible. These are Flanagan's words, Flanagan realized Cadman had weeks to live. The only way to reconcile what the main principle thought, and what Moore is spewing in Parliament, is too lose all of your intellectual capacities. It makes no sense, none whatsoever, in fact it such a cynical defence, it insults Cadman's real situation.

"This will become the biggest error in judgment in Mr.Dion's career"

What might be getting lost in Harper's statement of claim today, it would appear that the wounded duck has backed down to an extent, or at least that was the characterization of the apolitical, noted Canadian libel lawyer, Peter Jacobsen today:

"This statement of claim does not include them as defendents. So obviously the Conservatives are backing off the allegation that Mr. Dion, or Mr. Ignatieff, or Mr. Goodale knew what was on the website."

"And, that is significant, because it leaves open the question, why did they include them in the notice of libel in the first place, if they didn't have the goods"

Jacobsen also doesn't seem to think this matter belongs in the courts, and offers Harper a suggestion:

"One thing to remember is Mr. Harper has said, one of the reason they are doing this is so Mr. Dion can find out what the truth is at trial. It seems to be that the PM, of all people, has a very large pulpit to tell people what happened, what Mr. Cadman was offered or wasn't in some detail, and that would go a long way to resolving the matter. Once that was in the open, then the Liberal Party could come a long and say, "okay now that you've explained it, we're no longer asserting that you're involved in bribery, and that's the end of it"...it would be better for the Canadian people I would suggest"

"Legal Eagle", Joe Comartin of the NDP sees the same thing:

"I must admit, it's very surprising, and maybe a good sign in terms of lowering the temperature, that Mr.Dion, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Goodale who had been named in the notice, haven't been named in the lawsuit...So, they're not on the hook personally, so maybe that's a sign that the Prime Minister is backing off"

So, now that we start to peel the banana here, it would seem this isn't the "biggest error in judgement" Mr. Dion has made, in fact he isn't even part of the suit. Quite a different circumstance, compared to Harper's posturing a couple weeks ago. And, to all those Con apologists, just itching to watch the Liberals get their's, get comfy:

Jacobsen:

"The thing to remember, a libel suit is going to take MANY YEARS to come to fruition, likely one election, maybe two before this gets heard in a court of law, so one wonders if this was the best to deal with this dilemna"

One other thing to keep in mind, someone like Duffy (who has tried to ignore this story) was forced to devote 15 minutes of his program to discuss the matter, because of the legal case. This case (which will probably never see a courtroom, or when it does it will be so old nobody will care) keeps the Cadman story in the news, more headlines, without giving the Conservatives any positive development. The Liberals are not backing down, the website remains, they rise everyday in QP, so the legal threat does nothing, nobody has the "chill". I suppose people can take some comfort in the unknown, years away, but this lawsuit hurts the Conservatives when it matters, today, tomorrow, a few weeks, a few months. The libel case adds oxygen to a story that has nothing but bad news for the Conservatives.

Wah Wah

Below, members of Prime Minister Harper's inner circle meet to discuss what legal action to take against the Liberals:

.

Apparently, the meeting ended abruptly, after Harper complained of a poopie bum.

Harper Follows Through On Libel Suit

Harper will sue the Liberals for two and a half times the money he and his cronies "allegedly" offered Cadman:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is following through on his threat to sue the federal Liberals for $2.5 million because of accusations, posted on the Liberal party's website, that he knew of "Conservative bribery."

The lawsuit — a statement of claim was served today — is a response to the "defamatory" statements made by the Liberals, Harper spokesperson Sandra Buckler said.

"He's doing what any other person with integrity would do to defend himself and his family," she said.

Actually Sandra "I misspoke" Buckler, people with integrity answer basic questions, people that are telling the truth don't dodge and weave, stonewall and use the legal route to try and kill a story.

Harper sets a horrible precedent here, but hardly a surprising one. The good news, Canadians overwhelming disapprove of this tactic, it actually furthers the notion that Harper is a mean-spirited bully. Will he win or not? Who knows, but one thing for certain, none of us will know for years.

Iraq Neutralized?

Conventional wisdom always assumed Iraq would be an albatross for any Republican Presidential nominee. On the flip side, the Democratic candidate would have no more effective talking point, Iraq would sway independents, giving them the advantage in the fall. A new PEW poll brings fairly startling results, and while temporary, fluid, volatile, these numbers might give Democrats pause:

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.

As many voters now believe that the war is going “well” as “not well” — 48 percent each, according to Pew.

Pew also found that 49 percent favor bringing the troops home as soon as possible while 47 percent say the troops should stay in until the situation stabilizes — statistical parity between the two positions.

The big electoral prize, independents are equally divided:

Half of self-identified independents polled now believe the United States should “keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized,”

Iraq is McCain's issue, he has never shied away from bringing it up, even when it was politically perilious. For the Republicans, the prospects of any Iraq debate, which essentially amounts to a draw with the public, is really a victory, relative to the past circumstance. If the Republicans can take Iraq off the table as a point of criticism, that represents a worrying sign for Democrats, who always assumed advantage.

What these numbers tell us, there is a growing perception that America has turned the corner in Iraq, whether that is accurate or not is clearly debatable. However, in terms of perception, I doubt anybody would have predicted this change in opinion, and it clearly works against the Democrats.

Chuck Yuk's

Pretty funny, not to mention factual(h/t Matt).



Kady O'Malley has another good post on the insanity that is the Cadman Affair in the Justice Committee. Conservatives seem to be quite committed to stonewalling something which is apparently baseless. Interesting.

Misguided Loyalty

Cherniak asks the big question today of Liberal bloggers, “is your blog hurting or helping the cause?” Such an offensive post, on so many levels, I frankly don’t know where to start.

According to Jason:

I'm asking people to think about what they are writing and why they are writing it. That's communications 101.

In other words, people should censor themselves, people shouldn’t articulate an honest opinion, because the primary consideration is appearances. Libloggers are really meant for propaganda, another tool to argue the pre-approved, easy on the eyes, talking points. If one were to criticize, this somehow harms the party, this is counter-productive. What UTTER RUBBISH.

Let’s keep it real for a minute, especially on this “communications 101” angle. For communication to be effective, it must be credible, the reader must have some respect for the words conveyed. If people are reduced to reciting lame talking points, because all they care about is required presentation, they aren’t taken seriously. Take yesterday for example, Jason tries to argue against going into an election, but is reduced to using Easter as a prime rationale for Liberal opposition- what person takes that crap seriously? Is Jason so arrogant he assumes his readership operates with the intellectual sophistication of a 10 year old? No, it’s just dismissed as partisan nonsense, it doesn’t help any cause, in fact it makes you look desperate.

I honestly believe that the Liberals are doing themselves irreparable harm by abstaining, delaying an election, conveying weakness. I have no personal agenda, I am not here to curry favor with the Liberal leadership, I have no ambitions, I don’t need to kiss ass (you do the math). I will continue to “moan and whine” as I see fit, but I also will offer support when warranted. In that way, people who bother to read this blog know that my views are my own, they aren’t a filtered calculation. Bloggers don’t harm anything by expressing themselves, in fact that is what the medium is supposed to be, it isn’t a commercial. If Jason thinks his approach is productive, he is frankly kidding himself, and I use the laughter some of his posts generate as proof. I think Liblogs should be a vehicle for the grassroots, not a forum for censored propaganda.

UPDATE

Scott says it better here.

Talking Tough IV

Where have we seen this movie before?:

Election-shy Liberals are suddenly threatening to bring down Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government as early as next month over legislation to implement the latest federal budget.

The about-face Tuesday followed several weeks of humiliation for Liberals, who've been finding novel ways to avoid defeating the government on crucial confidence votes – including a series of votes on the very budget that they're now warning could prompt a spring election...

Actually, others are suggesting the same:

Some Liberals in high places now believe there's a window of fresh opportunity opening that could make what seemed like a mission-impossible takedown a theoretical possibility.

But Liberal hawks with influence dissected the latest Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Canwest News Service and from the raw numbers, mysteriously deciphered 123 Liberal seats versus 114 for the Conservatives. Unless the Libs suffer a St. Paddy's Day massacre on Monday and lose more than one of the four by-election contests, they predict spring election fever will continue to rise.

The most comforting line I've read recently, that people might just get it:

Privately, a good number of Liberal MPs, including deputy leader Michael Ignatieff, have been urging Dion to pull the plug. They fear that propping up the government has made the party appear spineless and unprincipled, a perception that will only get worse the longer Liberals refuse to take a stand.

Worse indeed, in fact we are almost at the point of no return. This is as good as it gets.

Stonewall

Justice Committee chair Art Hanger doing his best "I'm taking my ball and going home" routine, after the opposition (minus the NDP) challenged his ruling on Cadman. Hanger ruled Leblanc's motion to investigate out of order. When challenged, poor Mr. Hanger left his post as chair, stomping out of the room:

Hanger says he's stepping out of the room and—refusing to serve as chair?...

He's refusing to call the vote, which means the opposition has to fill his spot...

The motion will be first on the agenda when the committee meets again, although I'm not sure when that will be, what with the chair abandoning his post.

Discussions with someone far more knowledgeable than I reveal that the clerk may have made a critical mistake by allowing the chair to stomp off without dealing with the challenge to his ruling. Apparently, that renders everything since that point of somewhat dubious procedural legitimacy.

Like little children, the way the Conservatives react when they don't get their way. Mr. Hanger was last seen trudging through the snow, on his way home. What will his mother say when she learns he forgot his mittens?

It Matters

When faced with the harsh reality, that yes, hiding behind curtains, abdicating your role in parliament, might come at a price, the popular defence seems to be, it doesn't matter, nobody is really paying attention. Liberals can act with relative impunity, their actions have little impact on a disengaged public, only junkies care, they aren't representative of the greater population.

I would agree, that Canadians are generally apathetic at the moment, certainly not engaged enough to care about the details. However, to extrapolate that fact into a rationalization that Liberals don't pay a price for their performance, is wishful thinking.

First off, you can immediately eliminate half the electorate, because these people don't vote, their indifference is irrelevant to any equation, they don't exist in terms of impression. Now that you've narrowed your audience, you've taken "joe blow" out of the mix, you are left with the other half, of which a reasonable percentage are somewhat engaged.

When asked if people follow events at a national level closely, 28% of Canadians said yes. Another 50% say they follow events somewhat closely. This finding supports another study, which tracks people's new access:

Sixty-five per cent of Canadians read a daily newspaper on any given weekday, and 72% read a newspaper on weekends. Canadians spend an average of 45 minutes a day reading their daily newspaper and almost 90 minutes on weekend editions.

I would argue 99% of the people who actually vote encompass the 65% who read a newspaper, we need not concern ourselves with the completely disinterested, nor should we find comfort in their habits. Again, they are irrelevant to the equation. When you see a stat, that a quarter of people follow events closely, we are really talking about half of the voting public. The rest, the other half, are at least exposed to the level of casual information absorber.

What the people who defend the Liberals at the moment forget, it doesn't take a high degree of engagement to grasp the broad themes. Let's look at one example, Dion's leadership. By an overwhelming majority, Canadians have developed an impression that Dion isn't a strong leader. I've heard many argue that this is a by-product of the constant Tory attack ads, they have damaged Dion somewhat. That might be true, but I find it odd to use a medium to help explain, the same medium which apparently nobody watches. If people see the commericals, hear the ads, they are also catching the odd newscast, a couple moments on the radio. In other words, night after of night of negative stories about abstaining and lame excuses eventually has an impact, even if people aren't consumed, like political junkies.

When people react to the NDP, Bloc, Conservative attacks on the Liberals with "so what?", it conveys too things, partisan arrogance and bad spin. It does matter, it does feed an already held perception of the Liberals, it cements the frame, it makes it hard to break out of that negative image. If you think that conditions will somehow improve, within a climate which oozes weakness day after day, then you are kidding yourself. If you think nobody cares, all of this occurs within some esoteric playground, detached from people's busy lives, then you are kidding yourself. Actions have consequences, and while one individual vote might not resonate, patterns do, broad strokes sink in, impressions are made.

Tough Guy

Despite the fact Canadians overwhelming reject Harper's legal threats, according to Duffy, the Liberals can expect the paperwork to move forward "any day":

Top Liberals recently became the subject of a legal threat after posting claims about the incident on their website. It marks the first time a sitting Prime Minister has sued the opposition for libel.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, the Liberal Party of Canada and MPs Ralph Goodale and Ignatieff have been threatened with a lawsuit and expect the paperwork any day, something Ignatieff says is not in keeping with Canada's democratic traditions.

"In the House of Commons I raise matters that are of legitimate public concern," Ignatieff said. "What do we get? We get sued. Why is the prime minister trying to sue members of Parliament when they're trying to do their job?"

I thought Travers said it best, very unbecoming for the Prime Minister to "hide behind the skirt of the legal system". Given the fact you can still view the articles in question on Liberal.ca, it would appear people are shaking in their boots tonight. The service will guarantee one thing, another round of discussion in the press, which invariably brings more questions about unsatisfactory answers.