Great Move

I can't understand why some Liberals are expressing "concern" over the Green/Liberal election deal. Forget the symbolism of not running candidates in all ridings, that perception is almost irrelevant when you weigh the positives. I honestly don't see a downside and here's why.

Elizabeth May has credibility on the environment that goes beyond partisanship. If May endorses Dion for Prime Minister it has an objective flavour that makes her support relevant. May's isn't a Liberal, May worked for Mulroney, May takes the unprecedented step of sacrificing her party's own self-interest, in the name of what is best for Canada. That is a powerful statement, especially as it relates to a Liberal leader, desperate to look a credible alternative and get some traction. The May/MacKay battle will garner national attention, which gives May a audience to make her points, within the frame of indirect support for Dion. I view May's position as pure political gold for Dion.

Another advantage, May's move undercuts the NDP. I say this from the Liberal perspective, May's "decision" could make the NDP appear divisive. Here we have a Green leader, willing to work together, against a common foe. That reality sends a message to voters that we can't afford to divide the vote, with Harper the benefactor. If that sentiment takes shape, the soft NDP voter might be inclined to move to the Liberals. Layton could come off as partisan, the odd man out, as others move to work together. I really believe the NDP risks being boxed in, and any harsh attacks on the Liberals might fall flat. From the Liberal perspective, I see the Green move as indirectly hurting the NDP, which again says advantage Dion.

When Harper attacks the Liberal environmental plan as a economic killer that relies on taxes, Dion now has an ally to join the retort chorus. People tire of the Liberal/Conservative point, counter-point arguments, often time it's tuned out as naked partisanship. Enter May, the calm, respected voice, who has Dion's back and the dynamic changes. When Tories howl about inaction and 13 years, we now have an interesting perspective. Voters may ask themselves, if Dion is such a fraud, then why is the Green leader speaking highly, offering support. Please explain how Dion loses, or Harper gains.

I'm not sure that May's move is a good for the Green Party, it's risky, particularly with the growing support. However, if I focus on Liberal prospects solely, this alliance looks a winner, in many respects.

What Can Dion Do?

First you acknowledge the problem, then you figure out ways to change the perception. What can Dion do to improve his image, as it relates to the leadership question?

I saw the first hint of a strategy when Dion rallied MP's in caucus, with the requisite media access. An orchestrated event, it was important to let a suspicious press see Dion, center-stage, leading the charge. This little photo-op won't really resonate outside of Ottawa, but it could have some impact on the people that give us the information. A small step towards credibility, but the kind of thinking that could payoff in the long run.

I would plan a Dion trip to Afghanistan. Frame it as a fact-finding mission, a hands on attempt to better understand the situation. Meet with Afghan officials, Canadian military, reconstruction teams, humanitarian officials. Such a trip has a practical application, but politically speaking this trip could do wonders for Dion's image.

Speaking of travel, Dion should meet with some European allies, to discuss environmental issues. I'm sure Dion could get a meeting with Chirac, EU officials. Lead the charge on the revised Clean Air Act, let others know that the Conservatives don't speak for the majority of Canadians. Undermine Harper, elevate yourself, on a stage that speaks leadership.

In terms of marketing Dion, any ad campaign should put the leadership question at the heart. Cobble together any footage or stills that show Dion speaking to a large audience. Dion on the stage, others watch intently, as a leader speaks. Remind people that Dion has led, whether it be the Climate Control conference, during the last referendum, or even a simple rally. I don't think you can underestimate the power of imagery.

Any other ideas?

No Sugar Coating

If you want to take the SES poll numbers as proof that the Liberals are still viable, and Harper is well short of majority territory, then you also have to accept the leadership numbers at face value:

Of the following individuals, who do you think would make the best Prime Minister?
• Stephen Harper 42%
• Stephane Dion 17%
• Jack Layton 16%
• Gilles Duceppe 7%
• Elizabeth May4%
• None of them 7%
• Unsure 6%

One word, concerning. The numbers are even worse if you look at the regional breakdowns, where Dion scores a pathetic 10% in Quebec, while Harper sits at 43%. I would classify that particular finding as objectively alarming. The lone bright spot is Ontario, where Dion only trails Harper 37% to 22%.

The standard retort to Dion’s abysmal leadership numbers is to look at Harper’s leadership deficit in the last election. The only problem with this defence, it is really an apples and oranges comparison. While opposition leaders generally fall short, compared with the Prime Minister, Harper had certain advantages built into the election dynamic, that Dion doesn’t. There is no “kick the bums out” mentality within the electorate, and maybe more importantly, there is no overt disgust as it applies to scandals. Harper overcame the leadership gap because conditions super ceded that concern. Let’s not forget the Liberals enjoyed a 10 point lead, which completely vanished, when word leaked of the RCMP Goodale investigation. The large desire for change and corruption counteracted Harper’s problems, which is why I don’t simply dismiss Dion’s problems as completely standard.

What really concerns me about these numbers, once a campaign starts, then the various party leaders become even more of a focus. If people determine you aren’t ready for the job, that fact will trump policy, and put you at a distinct disadvantage. In my mind, if Dion can’t bring these numbers up, then any talk of a Liberal minority is pure pipe dream.

However, there is one caveat in these numbers. People have such a low opinion of Dion that he doesn’t have to do much to impress them. Dion could benefit from low expectations, possibly surprise people. I believe there is a disconnect between the perception of Dion and the real Dion. Dion isn’t weak, he doesn’t lack conviction and I know he can handle his own in a debate setting. This fact allows for some optimism that he can turn around those numbers with voters, once they see more of him. These numbers serve as a wake-up call, but they aren’t a death sentence.

UPDATE

I forgot to mention another interesting finding. Dion only scores 40% with Liberals on leadership, which speaks to internal problems as well in my mind. If the rank and file aren't impressed, you can't hope to win over the undecideds.

Great Gift Ideas

Have you visited the Conservative Party's online gift boutique?. I must say, the site does offers some great gift ideas:

A Quebec specific purchase, this item offers consistent protection from the money raining in from Ottawa. Buy two during budget time!

What better way to wait for greenhouse gas emission legislation.

Holds 22 ounces of kool-aid.

Look sharp, and have the ability to receive wireless, encrypted instructions, from the "war room", via a hidden transmitter. A must have come election time.

Why waste all that hot air?

Someone get my credit card away from me!

Why Canadians Should Want An Election

If anyone is concerned with good government and responsible use of taxpayer money, then they should relish an early election call. I still think the chances of an quick election are strong, but recent polls have created some doubt. Objectively, the best thing for Canada is an immediate election and here's why.

There is no doubt that the Conservative government has formulated policy within the idea of a early election. The rash of big ticket expenditures, a transparent election budget, all co-ordinated to maximize vote potential. Little regard for long-term fiscal responsibility, out of control government spending(8% rise) and what amounts to direct voter buying, as it relates to the mythical imbalance. The government is operating with short-term goals in mind, sacrificing balance for political expediency.

Let's say that an election doesn't happen, despite the transparency of the government, then what? You hear talk of a fall election, when Flaherty will release a financial statement. There is already speculation that if an election is delayed, the Conservatives will look for further tax relief prior to a call. In other words, if this moment is lost, we can expect another rash of irresponsible, short-sighted spending announcements, with voter appeal the only consideration. Canada can't afford to have a government that is forever in election mode, it will take a fiscal toll, not to mention no sense of real responsibility.

The Tories have spent with an election in mind, the best thing for Canada's long-term interest is simply to have that election. The alternative is more of the same, while the government squanders.

Did Karzai Speak With Canadian Killers?

Provocative title, completely fair question, given the recent admissions. I support a Canadian presence in Afghanistan, I support a limited military component. What I find particularly disturbing about today, Canadian forces out on a "offensive" operation to push back the Taliban, while the Afghan government holds talks with said enemy:

"Afghan Taliban are always welcome, they belong to this country. ... They are the sons of this soil," Karzai said. "As they repent, as they regret, as they want to come back to their own country, they are welcome."

What is the point of our mission, if the government of Afghanistan effectively undermines our intentions of "ridding" the land of Taliban fighters? Offering amnesty, while we simultaneously act in an offensive manner. It would seem the two strategies have no logical consistency. Are we negotiating or eradicating, and if we are negotiating, then why are we putting our troops at risk only to offer a later potential "repent"?

It's not just Karzai, other NATO countries are pushing the negotiation angle:

Senior German officials, including Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, have asked Berlin to host an Afghan peace conference where Taliban moderates could discuss terms with the Kabul authorities.

Kurt Beck, who is leader of Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition partner, first made the proposal during his visit to Afghanistan. Beck told reporters about his proposal after meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

Canadian troops are part of the vanguard trying to hold territory in Taliban strongholds. Canadians are dying because of the actions of insurgents, yet the home government is reaching out to those same people. Is it just me, or does this make little sense, and suggest today's toll may ultimately prove senseless?

UPDATE

I guess I'm not the only one asking the question.

"Holding Pattern"

The new SES poll suggests Harper's Quebec strategy is working, but it comes with a cost, that renders any gains meaningless:

the poll indicates the Conservatives would win about 36% of the popular vote, with the Liberals close behind at 33%, the New Democrats with 16%, the Bloc Quebecois 10%, and the Green Party 6%.

The bad news:

The biggest change for the Conservatives has been in Quebec where they have jumped from 20% in early February to an impressive 28% this week.

At the same time, the Liberals have been losing ground at a precipitous rate in the seat-rich province they once all but owned, dropping from 27% support two months ago to only 18% in the latest survey. Gilles Duceppe's Bloc Quebecois lead with 37%.

The other side:

In the West, support for the Conservatives remains unchanged at 41%, while the Liberals have increased their support five points to 35%, again taking votes from the new Democrats and Greens.

In the Maritimes, all the Harper-bashing by Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams over the budget has not altered Conservative support from two months ago.In fact, it is the Liberals that have bled about five points to Jack Layton's NDP and Greens, although the Grits still lead the Tories 40% to 28%.

The SES poll differs from some others, in that we see Harper making big gains in Quebec, which should give Liberals some pause. However, the Quebec strategy looks to have a cost in Western Canada, with the Liberals now QUITE competitive, when you factor out Alberta. Atlantic Canada is still solid Liberal terrority, even with the downtick, the Tories will lose seats if those numbers hold. Ontario is a deadheat, which seems to support the other polls which show volatility.

Whatever gains are made in Quebec, are countered with the potential loses elsewhere. Harper's Quebec numbers could mean a 10-15 seat gain the province, but you can quickly find a corresponding seat lose elsewhere in the country. If not for the gains in Quebec, the landscape would look decidedly bleak for Harper's prospects. One worrisome angle for the Conservatives, despite the momentum in Quebec, you can't discount the native son entirely. Dion might be down, but it would be foolish to think he can't rebound in his home province. If that were to happen in the campaign, then Harper's gambit may turn to disaster, as he has clearly alienated other regions to get his prize.

I don't see a great deal in this poll to cause Conservative excitement. You would have to think the Tory braintrust takes SES seriously, given the track record. This quote sums up the situation:

Nanos said. "I think for all intents and purposes, we are in a holding pattern."

The status quo, despite mountains of cash, favorable conditions and a supposed weak opponent. Maybe it's time for the media to turn the lens back on Harper's own failures, because that is real story in my mind.

UPDATE

Accidental Deliberations makes some relevant points about the NDP's fortunes in Quebec.

David vs Goliath

Everyone likes an underdog, nobody likes a bully. The Conservatives continue to flex their financial muscles, with the obnoxious opening of the "fear factory" and another round of attack ads. A show of force, an air of intimidation, but I wonder if the framing might backfire.

Liberals can't compete with the Conservatives, in terms of resources, that is painfully obvious. Better to embrace the underdog role, because it offers some potential with voters. Traditionally, the Liberal Party has been viewed as a bloated, hierarchical machine, that denotes a certain privilege. However, the Conservatives might just do the Liberal image a favour, in embracing force and might. The appearance now, the big bad Tories, up against the cash strapped Liberals. I'm not sure Canadians will respond to the idea that their vote preference is something that can be bought, or manipulated.

The Tory war room is obscene, and rather than fear it, Liberals should point to it as a symbol of a marketing campaign. People don't like to be thought of as sheep, that are easily bought and influenced. Whether they are or not is debatable, but it's the impression that could backfire. Contrast the hype-machine with a low key pledge to ideas and you might be on to something. Dion, the little guy, up against the powerful Conservative machine. There is a certain attraction in framing oneself as the underdog, people naturally sympathize.

Listening to various media outlets, I had the distinct impression that the Tory war room left a bad taste. In no uncertain terms, the message was clear, we don't need the media, will can talk over you. Reporters are supposed to be unbiased, but with such a direct rebuke of their traditional role, it could lead to a unintended blowback. Little Dion might just benefit from the perception that Harper is running a slick, propaganda campaign. Reporters, maybe more than the general population, can't resist an underdog. People will remember that Dion received nothing but positive coverage during the leadership race, when he was considered a longshot. You could argue that this coverage was instrumental in giving his campaign the credibility it needed to look viable.

You can't fight against reality. A shrewd strategy embraces that reality and tries to frame in a way that neutralizes the perceived advantage. I can't think of a better way to shed the past perceptions, than to package the Liberal Party as the scrappy underdog, passionately trying to get a positive message out, on an uneven playing field.

Shake Head

Like all the online newspaper editions, the National Post has the lead story on the dire climate change predictions, released today:

"Urgency needed"

Politicians react to stark warning on dangers of climate change
Canada needs to do more to prepare for the effects of climate change, government and opposition say

Here's the kicker, below the "full story" link on the front page are the following related stories:

"Canada's top 20 climate change power list"

"The Post's Deniers series on climate change"

"The green fervour"

Follow the logic, first a story outlining the grave climate change situation, followed by the never ending National Post series, which gives audience to every crackpot on the globe who rails against global warming. As an added bonus, an editorial that tries to frame environmentalism as some kooked out religious cult. Unbelievable. Why bother?


Next up, John Baird reacting to today's climate change predictions:

"The IPCC has presented further scientific evidence on the challenges Canada and the world is facing and will continue to face with climate change," said Baird, who wasn't available for further comment.

"But this government hasn't waited to act."

The government has acted, yet Baird says:

said Ottawa will announce targets for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gases and air pollution in the coming weeks.

We've acted, but we will be acting in the "coming weeks". We haven't waited, but just wait a little longer. That sounds logical.

Harper Majority?

The raw horse race numbers suggest Harper knocking on the majority door, and yet Decima's own polling tells us such a conclusion is suspect at best:

The poll, provided exclusively to The Canadian Press, put Tory support at 39 per cent -- nine points ahead of the Liberals and within spitting distance of the 40 per cent mark generally needed to secure a majority.

The NDP were at 13 per cent, and the Greens and Bloc Quebecois were at eight per cent each.

Ahead in Ontario, or just evidence of volatility?:

Over the past seven weeks, Decima's weekly polls have put the Tories ahead three times in Ontario, the Liberals ahead three times and the two parties tied once. The most recent poll, conducted March 30-April 2, put the Tories ahead with 42 per cent to the Liberals' 36 per cent, the NDP's 11 per cent and the Green Party's nine per cent.

And, what of Quebec, these numbers are hardly what the cash infusion had in mind:

The latest poll put the Bloc at 31 per cent for the second time in a month -- the lowest score the Bloc has earned in Decima polls over the past two years. The Liberals were close behind with 26 per cent while the Tories had 21 per cent and the Greens and NDP were tied at eight per cent.

The title reads "Tories closer to majority", but the thesis of this poll is articulated by Decima CEO Bruce Anderson:

Anderson said the fluctuating results in Ontario suggest voters are disengaged, do not see much difference between the Tories and Liberals and are thus able to switch preferences for little apparent reason and with little enduring commitment. And that makes them highly unpredictable.

"In a world where people feel that the risk of trying different choices is relatively low because the economy is strong, there aren't big crisis issues, all the parties are gravitating towards the centre, then the chance that voters will do unexpected things in the course of an election goes up.''

Would you prefer to see the Conservatives score less than 39%? Yes. Do these numbers mean doom and gloom for the Liberals? Absolutely not.

More and more, it looks like the actual campaign will be the difference in where people ultimately park their votes. You can't put much stock in objectively soft numbers, and if you want to take the "half full" argument, there is real opportunity in the volatility for the Liberals. If you accept the vacillating voter argument, then a mere 4% flip gets us back to a dead heat.

I would also take some solace in the fact that Harper still runs third in Quebec, despite his complete fixation with winning over Quebecers. Where is the budget bounce? Fiscal imbalance solved, yet no reward. The entire budget was crafted with Quebec in mind. Harper alienated other provinces to curry favor with Quebecers. If there is no gain in Quebec, then the real setbacks in some provinces, make the budget a net loser for the Conservatives.

One thing to consider, as it relates to Ontario. People have become accustomed to voting Liberal, they might be flirting with the Tories, but a strong platform, sprinkled with strong federalism rhetoric and talk of the "right wing" will play well. It will not take a herculean effort to bring people back to the Liberal fold, Harper hasn't endeared himself in any concrete way. A lot will depend on Dion, and his ability to get his message across.

Maybe we should be worried, but as is the case with many of the recent polls, the headline doesn't tell the real story, the devil is in the details. There's hope in them there internals.

MSM: Do Your Homework

It is quite frustrating to listen to supposed knowledgeable journalists expose complete ignorance when it comes to the online community. The assumption, people who blog are "kids", the implication, don't take it seriously.

Let's look at the largest political blog on the internet, Daily Kos. In an effort to destroy the myths about the internet, the following demographic profile was conducted and the results are as follows:

Demographic Profile of Visitors to DailyKos.com
Percent Composition of Unique Visitors & Composition Index

May 2006

Persons - Age

Persons: 18-34 20.7
Persons: 35-44 17.5
Persons: 45-54 27.7
Persons: 55-64 12.2
Persons: 65+ 21.9

Household Income

Under $25K 2.8
$25,000 - 39,999 9.4
$40,000 - 59,999 20.4
$60,000 - 74,999 7.9
$75K plus 59.4

I can't see any reason why the Canadian results would be much different. Conclusion, do your homework traditional media, especially when you care to comment. Now if we can just get Scott Tribe out of his pyjamas ;)

Bingo!

The new Liberal radio ads are the perfect counter to the Conservative attacks ads. The ads ask the basic question, which I have argued, if this government is such a juggernaut of ideas and accomplishments, then why do they need to resort to the negative?:

"If Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party attack Stéphane Dion, maybe it's because they're afraid of something. Afraid of his ideas, maybe? Afraid of his green plan? Afraid . . . of losing power?" a female voice says in one of the ads.

In another ad, a male voice depicts Mr. Harper as being out of touch with the times.

"In 2007, do we prefer a politician like Stephen Harper who spends his time attacking his adversary, or someone who is passionate like Stéphane Dion, who is concerned with the challenges of the 21st century? Which one brings us back in time?" the ad says.

The final Liberal ad criticizes the Conservatives for their previous attack ads, stating that they were created to hide a poor record.

"If Stephen Harper was convinced that his accomplishments to date are positive, would he spend all his money on attack ads against Stéphane Dion?" a male voice asks.

Great questions. You attack the government indirectly by pointing to their preference for negativity. You differentiate between the high road and the Harper gutter, in a simple way, by highlighting the tactics. These type of ads are the "hidden" attack ad, because they merely respond to the initial slight, make unflattering points, and yet they are justified- everyone has the right to defend themselves, don't they? The beauty of this approach, you frame Harper without the appearance of rolling in the mutual mud. Bingo.

Rim Shot

This is a great line by Dion:

"You can't blame the Conservative party for running negative ads," Dion said.

"They wanted to do a commercial about all the good things they've done . . . but there wasn't enough material for a 30-second spot."

The best way to combat the negativity, embrace it with humour. Dion's comment sums it up nicely. We have a government that brags about its record, keeping commitments, showing strong leadership, a new direction, and yet, they prefer the attack ad over trumpeting their achievement. That fact speaks volumes about the nature of the government.

Detracting From The Message

At first blush, the online Liberal ad campaign would seem a relative success. The goal was press coverage, mission accomplished. However, after watching a CTV piece on the ads, you have to wonder if the point is lost within the tiring Jason Cherniak debate. One commentator laughed off the ads effectiveness, referring to Cherniak as frankly a joke- no mention of content, just another swipe at the human pinata. After my MSM news fix, I go online, only to find ANOTHER raging debate about Cherniak on the National Newswatch.

Jason does an excellent job with self promotion, but I also think his motivations are mostly sincere. That said, if the goal of the new technology is to help the Liberal profile, you have to wonder if Cherniak isn't more hindrance than help. In other words, is this really the person who should be the "face" of the online community? Clearly, the media doesn't take Cherniak seriously, and don't even get me started on the online community.

If you accept this premise as fact, then the question becomes what is best for the Liberal cause? This online exercise shouldn't be about one persona and his ambition, it's supposed to be a collective of people, under the big tent, with a common purpose. This ad campaign highlights two contrasting paths. One, demonstrates the slow rise of bloggers to be part of the traditional discussion. The other, the Cherniak saga, checks any said benefit because the messenger becomes the message. Does anyone really believe that we win any converts with such a divisive "leader"? Frankly, Jason Cherniak hasn't demonstrated that he is ready to be "President" of anything. Jason is a lightning rod, who's prominence is often times embarrassing, juvenile and just plain distracting.

If the goal is defeating Harper, drawing attention to real issues and trying to exert some real influence, beyond a circus sideshow, then maybe it is time for Jason to ask himself a question. Does my high profile help or hinder the Liberal Party? If the answer distances itself from self-interest, the answer becomes more painfully obvious everyday. I thought it was about Liberals, too often it becomes the never ending soap opera. I await the next act, because as sure as the sunrise, there will be one, and credibility is the victim. Two cents.

Good Question

You know something is fishy, when The National Post's Don Martin questions the government. If you look at the pattern, you would almost think the Tories have something to hide:

RCMP whistle-blowers had been trying since the fall to drop their bombshell on the public record, but the public accounts committee voted repeatedly to keep them off the witness stand and their documents suppressed from the public record...

And if you’re looking for the most bizarre acts of obstruction and interference, look no further than Conservative MPs, possibly acting under orders from above, who voted as a block to sweep the accusations under the rug.

It’s incredible and inexplicable why a government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which wraps itself in the uniform of aggressive law and order, would vote repeatedly to deny RCMP officers...

His motion was rejected by all five Conservative members. He asked to take the matter behind closed doors. He was voted down again.

After hearing from a number of witnesses previewing the allegations in mid-February, he put forward a motion to grant the whistle-blowers parliamentary immunity to testify. He was voted down by the Conservative members and a lone New Democrat.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj felt he had enough evidence to secure unanimous support to call in the whistleblowers. Even so, it only squeaked by on a single vote with all five Tories voting against the motion.

I don't understand why the Conservatives were deliberately trying to bury this information. Afterall, the Liberals were in power when the allegations took place, you would think the Tories would be excited to bring it all to light. Martin's article doesn't provide any answers, calling Conservative excuses "lame". From everything we know, there was no political reason for the Tories to consistently thwart the "whistle-blowers", which begs the question- are there things we don't know?

Conservative MP's don't act as individuals. If all of them repeatedly voted against airing this scandal, it clearly suggests a directive from the PMO. Why? The confusion makes me think we need a public inquiry, as the Liberals have argued. Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

Green/Liberal Alliance?

Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, made some comments yesterday, that went largely unnoticed, but could prove quite important in the next election:

The Green party may abandon its efforts to field candidates in every riding so it can target certain areas.

In an interview before her speech, Ms. May said the party is still deciding its election strategy. The Greens fielded candidates in all 308 ridings across Canada during the 2004 and 2006 votes. Their tactics might change next time, Ms. May said.

"It's possible we won't have people in every riding, that will be up to my federal campaign chair," she said,

On the face of it, May's comments are counter-intuitive. Given that parties receive federal money, based on vote total, it would seem logical to want a full slate, to maximize turnout, particularly in an election that could bring record support. As it relates to debate inclusion, the argument that Greens are running everywhere helps the cause.

I'm not privy to Green Party discussions, but if I'm allowed to speculate, May's comments suggest the first concrete signal that the Liberals and Greens may work together in an effort to stop center-left fragmentation, while Harper benefits. If this is indeed the motivation, I don't see it as circumventing democracy, but more correctly, plain smart.

As an aside, it would be a powerful testament of principle, if May sacrificed the self-interest of her party and saw the need to focus on the big picture. If it turns out that there is an informal alliance in the next election, then I will surely give the Greens my vote as some small compensation- my riding is beyond blue, it's depressing actually.

Calling Out Conservative Hypocrisy

Andrew Coyne is on a roll:

I never cease to marvel at the blind partisanship of some of the commenters on this site. There doesn't seem to be anything Harper and Co. could do that could shake your faith: no budget so profligate, no promise so broken, no principle so abandoned, no pandering so overt, no Quebec strategy so failed, no rhetoric so inflammatory

"Faith" is a good choice, because there is a religious fervour to many within the hardcore Conservative base. Every party has their blind partisans, but the Tories stick out for their inability to offer any constructive criticism that actually questions policy or direction.

The blind loyalty is so absurd, nary a whisper about Harper's overt vote buying in Quebec. I even had one zealot commentator who actually had the nerve to say "the Liberal Party of Montreal", a childish reference, with no appreciation of irony. Where are all the howling Albertans screaming about preferential treatment? Where are the "alienated" screaming against central Canada? Where are all those fiscal conservatives demanding the government reign in spending? Where are the faithful who railed against the Martin attack ads because they were "unfair?

If I can find any positive in having to endure a Harper government, it probably has to do with destroying the ethical illusion that Conservatives embraced. All those years bashing the Liberals with pius indignation, contrasting their party as noble and accountable. Moral supremacy was a given, the Harper Conservatives were a principled bunch, who would keep promises and provide fair government. The realities of office have pierced the sanctimony, and Conservatives are now faced with their own shortcomings. As a matter of fact, the fall from the pedestal is more striking, given the holier than thou attitudes.

As the crickets chirp in Toryland, and the borg-like supporters make excuses and continue to flog that old Liberal horse, the hypocrisy becomes more striking.

"We need to get back to power as soon as possible."

I guess we know what today's talking point was in the Conservatives briefing email. I heard Baird, Bernier, Lord and two strategists all refer to the above quote today, which tells us a great deal. Repeat, repeat, repeat, swamp the airwaves with one, simple theme, to paint a picture. All the players synchronized together to weave a plausible truth.

You have to hand to the Conservative strategists for sheer audacity. On a day when the Tories showcase their "war room", we are bombarded with the nonsensical- it's really Dion that wants an election. Amazing. On a day when another round of attack ads are unleashed, the Tories have us believe that they just want to govern, it's that dastardly Dion that's itching for an election.

The parroting today gives us a window into the looming campaign. The Conservatives "Training Sessions" (nothing to do with an election call mind you) stressed the daily talking points. The war room will dispatch the daily phrases to the hinterland, and all the Tory minions will echo, saturating, in hopes of dictating the debate. Today was a window into the power of message control. A pointed, mis-information campaign, that makes the truth a casualty.

UPDATE:
I just wanted to add this photo, read the monitor:

Dion made us open this 17000 square foot facility. We are all pablum feed fools in Toryland. Hilarious, but frightening.

New Attack Ad To Run In Quebec

Instead of touting how they fixed the "fiscal imbalance" in Quebec, the Conservatives plan to go after Dion:

the new ad, which will air only in French, and only in Quebec starting Tuesday, focused on Dion, saying the Liberal leader denies the existence of a "fiscal imbalance" with the provinces — an imbalance they claimed the federal budget resolved.

Dion wants to "return to power as soon as possible," the ad intones, over quotes and headshots of the Liberal leader. He would "return Quebec to the past," the voiceover says.

It is interesting that the "fiscal imbalance" ad will only run in Quebec, which I view as testament to the uneven budget. This election may come down to one simple question, can Quebecers be bought?

Forecast: Heavy Showers

Below, a depiction of federalism in Quebec:
After the budget, there is no word for this announcement, except for obscene:

The Tories are set to announce a $900-million aid package for Canada's aerospace industry, with most of the money going to businesses in the politically key province of Quebec.

The money, to be spent over five years, will go to research and development, Radio-Canada reports.

Although the funding is not going specifically to Quebec, most of the top industry firms are based in the province.

Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier will make the announcement in Montreal Monday.

In the past, the Conservative government has said it prefers cutting taxes to create a business-friendly environment over subsidies.

Federal Liberals are criticizing the new funding announcement, saying it amounts to politicking.

Nevermind the Harper hypocrisy on subsidizing industry, it's time to ask the question, what the heck is happening here? If recent developments articulate Harper's view of federalism, then clearly the country doesn't work anymore. There is nothing unique in trying to appease certain regions of the country, but Harper's pandering is unparalled and risks division and animosity.

The notions of fairness, the greater good, are cynically replaced with political expediency. The scary part, if Harper is actually rewarded for such transparency, what does that say about Canada? Just imagine if the Liberals were engaged in such practices, the howls from Alberta would be deafening. Where is the Reform "base", why the silence? The duplicity is absolutely amazing and frankly undercuts much of the legitimate dissent.

I want a strong, vibrant Quebec, that is given the means to protect its unique identity. Having said that, Quebecers should be offended that Stephen Harper has such low regard for them that he thinks he can simply buy their affection. The whole strategy is really insulting, insulting to other provinces because of the uneven attention, and insulting to Quebecers because of the naked manipulation. Today, only re-affirms my opinion that Canada doesn't have a government, it has a marketing outfit who's sole purpose is the acquistion of power.

H/T Woman at Mile 0