Cabinet Shuffle Bounce?

Two seperate polls, both suggesting Harper's cabinet shuffle is playing well. At closer glance, it would appear the government has received some good will, which doesn't necessarily translate to support. Quebecers react positively:

The Conservatives made inroads in Quebec with its Cabinet shuffle last Tuesday, according to a new poll by Innovative Research Group for The Hill Times, which shows that, as a result of the shuffle, Quebecers are twice as likely to be more favourable to the government than the rest of Canada.

"What we see is that in Quebec, the shuffle's being seen more positively than in the rest of Canada.... It isn't a political earthquake, but it is a tremor, and it does suggest for the first time in a while some momentum for the Conservatives in Quebec."

The poll also found that although Prime Minister Stephen Harper's (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) Cabinet shuffle made no difference in favour for his government with 55 per cent of respondents, but 20 per cent said they are more favourable. Mr. Lyle said this is partly because of Mr. Harper's decision to move former industry minister Maxime Bernier (Beauce, Que.) into the foreign affairs portfolio, and former international cooperation minister Josée Verner (Louis-Saint Laurent, Que.) into the Canadian heritage file. In Quebec, the moves for the Quebec ministers are supported not only by Tories, but "it's creeping into groups like the Bloc," Mr. Lyle said.

The poll really tells us the obvious, of course Quebecers would react positively to changes which raise Quebec's profile in cabinet. It is a stretch to say this poll is indicative of increased support, but more correctly an admission that Harper has been afforded a measure of good will, as a result of the moves. Whether or not this translates to voter intention remains to be seen, and any favorable uptick could be temporary.

The other poll, released by the Financial Post, which canvasses business leaders and CEO's is objectively irrelevant:

Stephen Harper received a passing grade from chief executives and other Canadian business leaders for last week's Cabinet shuffle, according to a National Post/ COMPAS Inc. poll.

The Prime Minister received a "moderately strong" performance score of 63% for the shuffle that included moving Peter MacKay to the National Defence portfolio.

The transfer of Mr. MacKay from Foreign Affairs drew the highest individual score, 72%, while Mr. Harper's decision to deliver Maxime Bernier, the Industry Minister, into the Foreign Affairs portfolio earned a grade of just 60%.

One of the more controversial ministers of the 18-month-old Conservative government, Jim Flaherty, was left in his position as Finance Minister, a decision that earned Mr. Harper a score of 68%, despite some misgivings about the government's treatment of income trusts.

Would you expect anything less from a group which is naturally sympathetic to the conservative cause? None of the changes really affects economic policy, so I don't see any value whatsoever in taking a sampling of rich white men. In fact, this type of poll seems more a vehicle to create the impression of positive response, within a subset that is pre-disposed to react favorably, barring any radical change. This result creates some good press, but it really is yawner in terms of relevance.

Conclusion, Harper gets some theoretical traction in Quebec, which was the goal. The FP poll is more free advertising than informative, rendering it meaningless.

Democrats Need Gore

I've argued before that Al Gore should run for President, primarily because he could actually win. Polls still show Gore running a solid third, despite completely denying any interest in a run, which speaks to some viability. However, after listening to several debates, keeping track of the candidates, over the past few months, I've now come to the conclusion that winning or losing is irrelevant- the Democrats need Gore.

I realize America is obsessed about Iraq and terrorism, but the environment is barely on the radar screen, and the Democratic candidates have done little to focus the debate, apart from a few tertiary soundbites. A far cry from polls in Canada:

CBS News Poll. Aug. 8-12, 2007. N=1,214 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"
%
War in Iraq 34
Economy/Jobs 8
Health care 8
Immigration 7
Terrorism (general) 5
President Bush 4
Gas/Heating oil crisis 3
Poverty/Homelessness 3
Other 23
Unsure 5


The Harris Poll. July 6-9, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?" Open-ended
%
The war 27
Health care (not Medicare) 19
Immigration 13
Iraq 10
The economy (non-specific) 10
Education 7
Terrorism 7
Foreign policy (non-specific) 7
Taxes 5
Gas and oil prices 5
Employment/Jobs 5

I'm not suggesting the Democratic candidates are stiffs on the environment, the League of Conservation Voters gave the following ratings:

Obama 98%
Biden 95%
Clinton 83%
Edwards 37% (ouch)

What I am saying, Gore would sharpen the debate, bring the issue to the fore and get people talking. As it stands now, the issue is discussed, but not to the extent it should be, given the scenario. Gore has much to say, on many issues, and lately he is being characterized as the "soul of the Democratic Party", but for the sake of the cause, a run for President would accomplish a great deal, beyond any personal ambition. Gore should run as an extension of his awareness campaign, I can't think of a better vehicle. Whether Gore secures the nomination is secondary at this point, his presence would clearly light a fire under the Democratic Party, which appears to be lacking at present.

Luck

Liberal Life and Times points out the use of the word "unlucky", used by the military to describe today's death of a Canadian soldier:

Pte. Longtin, who hailed from the Montreal area, was the driver of a 2 Platoon Light Armored Vehicle, or LAV, and was simply unlucky, Charlie Company's officer commanding, Major Patrick Robichaud, said sorrowfully this morning.

This isn't the first time the military has used the reference, and I've heard it mentioned many times when we see a flurry of casualties. I remember one post, wherein it was pointed out that Canada was second only to the United States in coalition casualties, there was a response that argued it might be indicative of plain bad luck. Luck is a relative term I suppose, because in you want to characterize one incident as "unlucky", it is important to remember all the close calls, that get far less coverage, but translate to "lucky":

August 18:

Two Canadian soldiers were slightly injured after their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb, the Canadian military said.

Both were riding in a Track Light Armoured Vehicle, or T-LAV, along Highway 1 as part of a supply convoy for Canadian troops when they drove over the bomb.

"I am relieved the track vehicle was armoured, and protected their lives," military spokesman Lieutenant-Commander Hubert Genest said.


August 13:

Five Canadian soldiers injured this weekend in a Taliban ambush are recovering quickly and were not seriously wounded, Canada's top military commander in southern Afghanistan said yesterday.

The soldiers were travelling in a supply convoy early yesterday morning when their RG-31 Nyala armoured vehicle struck an improvised explosive device (IED).

The convoy then came under fire from rocket-propelled grenades.

Brigadier-General Guy Laroche said two of the soldiers had already been released from hospital yesterday, and the other three had sustained minor injuries.

I bring up the latest incidents, only because we tend to forget the close calls, or minor injury attacks. When you look at how many incidents there are, whether it results in a death is more a question of probabilities than "unlucky".

Quotas

Jeff already has a post, which rightfully calls out the gutless "unnamed source", criticizing Dion's power of appointment in Scarborough Southwest. However, I confess to complete disagreement with the tactics used by Dion to reach his quota of female candidates.

I don't profess to know Michelle Simson, but in a quick scan of her bio, she looks like a very strong candidate, with DEEP roots in the party. In this instance, it begs the question- does Simson really need Dion intervening, is she not capable of winning the nomination outright? IMHO, using this power, in this instance, actually does a disservice to the female cause. It projects the impression that Simson needs help, that her attributes and strengths have to be augmented by usurping a democratic process.

There are better ways to achieve the goals set out by Dion. It comes as no surprise to anyone, that the Liberal Party isn't exactly a grassroots first organization. If, the message was sent out, that people needed to rally behind Simson, she would already receive an advantage, without the spectacle of appointment. In other words, as I keep hearing about in other ridings, if you have the local powerbase on line, you are a virtual shoe-in. We can debate the merits of this elitist structure, but it does exist currently, which negates the need to appoint.

Women are men's equals. Dion's intentions are admirable, but the idea of a pre-determined number, substitutes quality for quantity. Women are perfectly capable of winning nominations outright, particularly in a party that often takes directives from above. There is no need to implement a crutch, which has the effect of detracting from accomplishment. There is no reason to believe that Simson couldn't win this riding, based on her own impressive credentials, in my mind that represents real progress, as opposed to what amounts to an artifical quota. Two cents :)

Stories You Won't Find On Blogging Tories

Pesky science, getting in the way of delusions again:

There was less sea ice in the Arctic on Friday than ever before on record, and the melting is continuing, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported.

Satellite measurements showed 5.2 million square kilometres of ice in the Arctic, falling below the Sept. 21, 2005, record minimum of 5.3 million square kilometres, the agency said...

But, Serreze said in a telephone interview, while some natural variability is involved in the melting "we simply can't explain everything through natural processes."
"It is very strong evidence that we are starting to see an effect of greenhouse warming," he said.

Critics often argue that you can't trust the computer models, associated with global warming. A feather in the cap for denialists, the models are wrong, the situation is actually WORSE:

The puzzling thing, he said, is that the melting is actually occurring faster than computer climate models have predicted.

Several years ago he would have predicted a complete melt of Arctic sea ice in summer would occur by the year 2070 to 2100, Serreze said.

But at the rates now occurring, a complete melt could happen by 2030, he said Friday.
There will still be ice in winter, he said, but it could be gone in summer.

Maybe Canada won't need those icebreakers afterall.

Just The Facts

Steve McIntryre's discovery of minor variations in the temperature records has been seized upon by right-wing bloggers as a massive setback for global warming proponents. Hysteria, and political motivations aside, you won't see the following graph on any denier websites:




The red curve includes the revisions, the green curve the old data. The reason you can't see the green curve, is because it doesn't deviate from the new curve. In other words, such a minisule change to the trends, it doesn't even register on the graph. Nothing has changed, except the denier crowd will cling onto this new tidbit, extrapolate and exaggerate, confuse and try to muddy the discussion. Kudos to McIntryre for uncovering a real error, even if turns out to be empirically irrelevant.

Surge Working?

Practical arguments aside, it would appear that the American troop surge in Iraq has been somewhat successful, in terms of perception. I wouldn't characterize the "renewed optimism" as widespread, but there is an uptick in favorable opinion:

More adults in the United States are voicing agreement with their government’s policies regarding the coalition effort, according to a poll by CBS News. 29 per cent of respondents think the troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, up 10 points since July:



As you may know, the U.S. has sent more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. From what you have heard or read, would you say this troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, making it worse, or is it having no impact on the situation in Iraq so far?

Aug...... Jul

Better 29% 19%

Worse 15% 20%

No impact 46% 51%

Unsure 10% 7%



From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?

Aug.....Jul

Increase 13% 12%

Same 17% 15%

Decrease 31% 39%

Remove all 30% 36%

Unsure 9% 7%

The numbers are still conclusive, but don't be surprised if findings such as the above, and Bush's minor uptick in approval, aren't used to support the idea that Iraq isn't a lost cause, even though it really is. It would seem that the concept of the "surge" is getting some traction with people, which might delude Bush further, into thinking he can carry on and pressure the legislature.

Petty

Apparently, both Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion were at the same event today, celebrating the Acadian national holiday. The article mentions that the two leaders never spoke:

Although they never spoke to each other, both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion joined the throngs of brightly costumed people as they paraded down the main street of Caraquet to mark Acadian Day.

Big parade, lots of people, easy to see how they wouldn't cross paths. However, the link also provides a photo:


Wow, talk about a childish display. "Oh, was that you, right there, can't believe we didn't see each other". Heaven forbid, we can put partisanship aside for a second, and maybe shake hands or share a brief laugh at a apolitical celebration. Has the situation deteriorated so much, that two grown men, leaders of the country, must pretend to ignore each other. Seems pretty petty from here. No comment on who was the likely "snubber", although I will lay odds.

Bad Liberal

I suppose I can reference this website the next time some boring stiff calls me a blind partisan :)

Obama Finds A Theme

I'm a uniter, not a divider, unlike my competitor:

Drawing a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview that he has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called "ideological gridlock."

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

Obama never used the term "polarizing" to describe Clinton but made it clear he has studied polls that show that many people have an unfavorable opinion of her. "I don't think there is anybody in this race who's able to bring new people into the process and break out of some of the ideological gridlock that we have as effectively as I can," he said.

The problem with clear frontrunner status, it is often followed by a period of introspection, as people weigh the consequences of the candidacy. The prospect of Clinton taking the nomination looks more realistic, which is why I see Obama's strategy as shrewd. Afterall, it isn't as though Obama's "polarizing" angle doesn't have ample merit:

WASHINGTON — Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

The problem is her political baggage: A whopping 49 percent of the public says they have an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 47 percent who say they hold her in high regard, according to a Gallup Poll survey Aug. 3-5.

Her negative ratings are higher than those of her husband, former President Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry at the end of their campaigns.

A candidate's unfavorability scores almost always climb during campaigns. If the pattern holds, Clinton has a historically high hurdle to overcome.

An interesting counter to the inexperienced angle, Obama makes his inexperience a positive, in that he doesn't bring baggage. The fresh factor allows Obama to make the claim that he can heal the ideological rift that people like Clinton personify. Obama addresses his weakness, but in so doing, points to Clinton's, negating the apparent disadvantage. As the reality of a Clinton candidacy sinks in, Obama is positioning himself to capitalize that sense of apprehension. A great theme, and probably Obama's best chance.

Isn't That Special

In Harper's post-shuffle press conference, he made this comment, as it relates to Gordon O'Connor moving to Minister of National Revenue:

“Mr. O'Conner has spent his entire public service, which is almost 40 years, in one area. That's National Defence. And I think it's time for him to have some other experiences.”

Translation- Mr. Connor is a one trick pony, who has no understanding of economics and finance, but we thought it was important, that at age 67, he start to dabble in new things.

The Canadian public should be re-assured that Harper has so little regard for this department that he puts a novice like O'Connor at the helm. If O'Connor wants "other experiences" maybe he should travel to New Zealand, or try pot, but it is an insult to give him this portfolio, given the incompatible resume. Minister of Veteran Affairs or nothing, if we are to take this shuffle seriously.

Ominous Words

An elder statesman, who knows a thing or two about constitutional clashes, with some ominous words on the future of the federation:

A war is looming between Alberta and the federal government over pollution caused by oil sands development that will far surpass any previous federal-provincial battle in its political and economic stakes, former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed predicted Tuesday.

He said that Alberta's desire to bypass toughened federal environmental laws will cause considerable dispute within the province itself, and will “cause significant stress to Canadian unity.

“The government of Alberta, with its acceleration of oil sands operations, will in my judgment be seen as the major villain in all of this in the eyes of the public across Canada,” he said.

Mr. Lougheed predicted that the dispute will very likely go before the Supreme Court as a constitutional reference, forcing the Court to decide whether the British North America Act gives the province the right to develop its energy resources as it sees fits.

“My surmise is that we're into this constitutional legal conflict soon,” he said. “And my surmise is that – and this is strong stuff – national unity will be threatened if the court upholds federal environmental legislation and it causes major damage to the Alberta oil sands and our economy.”

Interesting perspective, considering Lougheed's recent call for a moratorium on future expansion of the tarsands:

What is the hurry? Why not build one plant at a time? I hope the new government in Alberta will reassess this and come to the conclusion that the mess, and I call it a mess, that is Fort McMurray and the tar sands will be revisited.

I keep trying to see who the beneficiaries are. Not the people in Red Deer, because everything they have got is costing more. It is not the people of the province, because they are not getting the royalty return that they should be getting, with $75 oil. It is a major, major federal and provincial issue.

There are a lot of negatives about an overheated economy, and we truly have an overheated economy in Alberta today. And the question is the sustainability too.

Sept 2006

Lougheed is quite critical of environmental damage, caused by rapid growth in development. However, his reputation on provincial jurisdiction is well known, so he provides a unique tension. Lougheed argues against the tar sands, but that doesn't necessarily translate into supporting a federal incursion.

If Lougheed is correct, then Canada will face a seismic challenge to national unity. Stelmach's stance is entirely rigid and uncompromising, while the sense that something needs to be done gains traction. Hopefully, the situation can be resolved within Alberta itself, because there does seem to be growing resistance to unbridled growth, coupled with the realization of the boom pitfalls. Whether that sentiment will translate to government is questionable, but I think it fair to say that Albertans are environmentally conscious. The last thing we need, is Ottawa forcing its will on Alberta, right or wrong aside. A rational debate will quickly plunge into a seige mentality, with easy fodder for tribalists to ratchet up the rhetoric and create lasting damage. The scenario Lougheed points too is realistic, let's hope it never happens.

19 Times Out Of 20

Even the most respected pollster, statistically is bound to miss the mark. I would characterize polling guru Nik Nanos' latest SES offering as curious. The horserace numbers:

Cons 36% (+4)
Libs 33% (unchanged)
NDP 13% (-4)
Greens 8% (-2)
Bloc 9% (+1)

This is the only poll I have seen in months that puts the NDP this low. As a matter of fact, every other polling outfit has shown the NDP to be the only party with any momentum. I also am somewhat puzzled at the SES regional numbers for the NDP, particularly Quebec and Ontario:

Quebec-
NDP 7% (-6)

Ontario-
NDP 12% (-7)

Again, SES appears to be an outlier, because other outfits show no such erosion. I have a hard time accepting such a big dive for the NDP, in such a short time, given the lack of a crisis or negative coverage. Again, other polls show the NDP fortunes on the rise in Quebec, and no downfall in Ontario. When you apparently stumble this bad, there should be a glaring, rational explanation. What that could be eludes me, hence my scepticism.

There is some good news for the Liberals, particularly Dion's leadership numbers on the question of best PM (up 8 to 23%). Having said that, I have a hard time buying this outrageous surge in support:

Ontario:
33% Dion best PM (+18)

This figure screams fishy. If you take SES as fact, you could reasonably conclude that Dion has closed the leadership gap. Let's hope Liberal strategists put this poll to the smell test. Phew.

SES is the most historically reliable outfit, but on this release something just seems wrong IMHO.

UPDATE

No surprise, which blogger smells a rose, a big, red one :)

Ouch

Below, a visibly distraught Diane Finley exits 24 Sussex, after being told she will leave Immigration, to assume the role of Atlantic Canada re-election co-ordinator:

What Farmers Are Saying

If you isolate yourself to Conservative propaganda, farmers are outraged and appalled that the Canadian Wheat Board is able to maintain its monopoly. If however, you venture outside ideological tunnel vision, a different picture materializes. Farmers are outraged, but it would appear the Harper government is the problem:

"The government's response so far really reinforces this notion that we have that they will do or say anything in order to destroy the Wheat Board. They are not remotely interested in trying to work constructively with the farmers of Western Canada and let the farmers of Western Canada decide," said Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union. "If there's to be any kind of a change in marketing whatsoever, the farmers should recommend those changes to the Wheat Board directors and the Wheat Board directors should go to the minister and recommend those changes and then the minister triggers the formula that's set out in section 47.1 of the Wheat Board Act and that's how changes should be made, whether grains are added or deleted from the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction. Of course that's not what we're seeing. That's grassroots democracy. Changes of any kind should come from the farmers of Western Canada."

"If they want to indicate that they were going to start working with the Western farmers instead of against them, they would announce immediately that they're not going to appeal this ruling,"

"the anti-Wheat Board farmers, the anti-Wheat Board machine wants to present this as a fight between the Canadian Wheat Board and farmers and that the farmers are poor, downtrodden farmers that are first oppressed by the Wheat Board and now they're oppressed by the Federal Court decision. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Federal Court decision was a victory for grassroots farmers."

"Change" should come from the farmers, what a novel idea.

Bad Spin

Interesting article in The Hill Times on party fundraising. An up and down piece for Liberal fortunes, but the highlight for me, the bad spin from the Conservatives, to justify falling donations in the second quarter. Jeff has already pointed out the problems the Conservatives have with Canadian geography, but apparently the ignorance also extends to the seasons. Nothing says Canadian summer like April and May:

The Conservative Party's fundraising numbers also went down in the second quarter. In the first quarter, the Harper Conservatives raised $5.1-million but in the second quarter they raised $3.7-million. Mr. Sparrow said the numbers went down because it was summer. "Numbers traditionally go down in summer. If you look at our second quarter numbers from 2006, you'll also see that they go down like other parties. People are on holidays, people are not as engaged in the political process in the summer, that seems to be the way," he said.

To be fair, there are 10 days of summer in the second quarter, as opposed to the other 81 that are in spring. Is Sparrow projecting a bad Conservative third quarter, which is actually the summer period?

The bad spin actually makes a strong case for the Liberals. In the second quarter, donations were up threefold, which means the Liberals have successfully bucked the summer blahs, according to Sparrow. A new scandal emerges, the Tories have killed spring.

Right-Wing Media

One of the great illusions on the right, the notion of the left-wing media bias. The martyr-complex, the decided underdog, trying to get the message out against a sea of prejudice, who's sole purpose is to keep conservatives at bay. The idea of bias comes up daily on right leaning blogs, even though the convenient crutch has no relationship to reality. In fact, it is those on the left that should be crying foul:

Sun Media has become Canada's largest newspaper publisher with the acquisition of the operations of Osprey Media, with readership of more than 6.4 million every week.

The readership data shows the combined reach of the Sun Media and Osprey dailies is more than 1.6 million readers ahead of the nearest competition, CanWest Media.

Since Osprey's operations are all in Ontario, the acquisition creates a media powerhouse in that important marketplace. In Ontario, the Quebecor network has 31 daily newspapers - Sun Media's five large, paid-circulation and free dailies in Toronto, Ottawa and London plus six smaller dailies and Osprey's 20 smaller dailies. The companies have 102 smaller community and speciality publications in Ontario - Sun Media's roster of 68 Ontario publications and Osprey's 34.

The Osprey daily newspapers include The Kingston Whig-Standard, Canada's oldest continuously published daily, and The Peterborough Examiner

Just the facts please. Sun Media is an embarrassing, highly biased, Conservative organ, while CanWest is unbashedly center-right. The fact that these two operations are now the top two media outlets represents a clear threat to the notion of journalistic objectivity. Conservatives are right on media bias, they just have the political compass wrong.

Bounce?

The thinking with a cabinet shuffle, convey a new flavor and a fresh approach. If the braintrust in the PMO thinks the looming cabinet shuffle will help the government, history would tend to suggest otherwise:

Consider the seven Cabinet shuffles CanWest News Service examined:

• A major Mulroney shuffle in January, 1989, had no impact on PC party standings, which remained at 43-44% in the three months before and after, according to Ipsos Reid polling data. Gallup recorded an even worse result - a drop of five percentage points in the month following the shuffle.

• Another Mulroney shuffle in April, 1991, was accompanied by a drop in support from 20 to 17%, according to Ipsos Reid.

• A final Tory shuffle in January, 1993, shortly before Mr. Mulroney announced his retirement, made no difference to the government's dismal standings of 17-18%.

• Mr. Chretien's major Cabinet shuffles also did little to help his political fortunes. After a shuffle in January, 2002, his government dropped from 49 to 45% in the polls.

• Another Chretien shuffle in May, 2002, was accompanied by a drop in Liberal support from 47 to 43%, despite the strong support the former prime minister received for firing scandal-plagued defence minister Art Eggleton.

• In June, 2002, when Mr. Chretien removed Paul Martin as finance minister - an unpopular move among many Canadians - support for the Chretien Liberals fell from 43 to 41% as expected, but was back up to 44% four months later, according to Ipsos Reid.

• In January this year, Mr. Harper made his first Cabinet shuffle, partly in response to growing public concerns about climate change. He appointed John Baird as the new environment minister. Months later, however, the Conservatives were still stuck at 32% in popular support, the same level as before the shuffle.

The problem with a cabinet shuffle, the newness factor is counter-acted by the perception that something is wrong. In some respects, you show weakness in admitting that change is required. The last shuffle surrounded the criticism that Ambrose was incapable of handling her department. This shuffle seems to key in on O'Connor, for the very same reasons. You ponder moves, because the people you have are demonstrating some incompetence, hurting the government.

"Safe Seat"

Quite a lot of buzz surrounding the by-election in Outremont, most of it involving the NDP's chances. Conventional wisdom argues a two-man race, so it is interesting to see how the Liberals and NDP are acting respectively. The clear underdog, the NDP braintrust is pouring energy and money into the riding, which gives the perception of momentum. Layton has visited, Muclair has been in full campaign mode for weeks, a clear message of making a statement, sending a message.

By contrast, you don't get any sense of urgency from the Liberal camp, and that fact is illustrated in a trivial point, but one that may be indicative:

Mulcair's team was already campaigning about a month before the byelection was called and they peppered the riding with signs the night the vote was announced.

Tory and Bloc signs are outnumbered by Mulcair posters on a couple of main thoroughfares and Coulon's are nowhere to be seen in some spots.

Obviously, we will see Liberal signs and presence as the campaign intensifies, but I consider it a serious blunder to be slow out of the gate. Why allow the NDP to capitalize on appearances, which suggests a tight-race and momentum on their side? The people of that riding have surely noticed the "sign" disparity, and it conveys the message that the NDP is in the game, there is a buzz around Muclair. In other words, Liberal lethargy has put wind in the NDP sail, which really is inexcusable from a tactical point of view.

Whenever someone suggest that this riding is winnable for the NDP, it is met with complete scepticism in Liberal circles, the "safe seat" mentality. This attitude is justifable, given the history and common sense, but there is a danger in that apathy hurting the Liberal chances. From the outside, all the energy and passion seems to be with the NDP, which is relevant in a by-election, where making "changes" is more common. This by-election has the potential to be a watershed moment for both the NDP and the Liberals, it would be nice to get the sense that the Liberal braintrust understands the ramifications. Early opinion, advantage NDP.

Harper's Top Minister?

With a cabinet shuffle looming, I thought it might be a good idea to take stock of Ministerial performance to date. Who is the best of the worst, the least incompetent, the fern in the desert? If you HAD to choose, who gets the nod?

On the question of who has performed best in their portfolio, I would have to pick Stockwell Day. I've actually been surprised at Day's ability to convey an air of normalcy, as though a rational human being. Maybe it was the low expectations, but Day has showed some ability to navigate potential landmines, and his cool demeanor has served him well.

Day's performance has apparently garnered him some respect within media circles. Agree or disagree, Day answers questions in a measured way and appears to have a good handle on the issues within his jurisdiction. For the most part, Day appears to be "on top of things"(glaringly obvious example excluded).

I would classify his performance as a marked comeback, because Day was largely written off as a fringe player, well past his best-before date. Day now looks like a intregal part of the governments team, who seems to enjoy a degree of independence we rarely see in Harper's tight, controlling style. You could almost go so far as to say Day has emerged as an attractive asset for this government, a thought once unthinkable, given the past.

Partisanship aside, political stances omitted, in terms of performance, I would pick Stockwell Day, in the spirit of relativity.

UPDATE Mushroom grades the lemon factory.

Up Is Down

It is almost funny when you think about. The federal government arguing for limiting the federal role, the provinces arguing for the federal role. Up is down:

Canadian premiers foreshadowed a coming clash with Prime Minister Stephen Harper Friday over his pledge to diminish Ottawa's role in creating national social programs, warning that poorer Canadians could suffer.

"I'm a bit concerned about it. Are we talking about preventing the federal government from at some point in the future setting up social programs like daycare or pharmacare? Because I don't support that," Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said as the premiers wrapped up their annual meeting.

"I'm a proud Ontarian. Proud to lead this province. But I'm a proud Canadian first."

Manitoba Premier Gary Doer said he doesn't believe in duplication of spending, "but I also believe in the role of the national government to have the ability to redistribute opportunities and equity for regions in Canada that need it."

In the natural order, it is the job of the federal government to act as a check on ever demanding, power hungry provinces. However, when you have a Prime Minister who shows a distaste for the relevance of his own organ, the balance is lost. It is remarkable that it is left to the Premiers, who are generally narrow in their concerns, to argue the case for cohesion and national presence. The fact that the conversation has taken this form, should be considered a disgrace, because it demonstrates the lack of a real Prime Minister of Canada, who can speak above the regional noise.

UPDATE Woman At Mile 0, on the same topic.

NDP Calls On Long To Be Removed

Hopefully, the Liberals will join the NDP, because the last person who should be involved in hiring the new CBC head is a Conservative hack like Tom Long:

NDP Culture and Heritage Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) called on recently appointed CBC Chair Timothy Casgrain to remove Tom Long from any involvement in the search for a new CEO and executive director of news for the public broadcaster.

“Mr. Long is a Conservative insider with ties that go all the way to PMO communications director, Sandra Buckler,” said Angus. “This is just another way for Harper to control media content. We are hoping that Mr. Casgrain will recognize this clear conflict of interest and remove Tom Long from participating in any way in the process.”

Everyone should be worried, that a man who once said Joe Clark wasn't a true conservative, who has a chief architect of the Mike Harris "common sense" revolution, who once received a lucrative contract from the Ontario Conservatives, who ran for the Canadian Alliance, who had Sandra Buckler as a media spokesman, who's old campaign manager is chief of staff for Fortier, is the "lead executive" in finding a new CBC head. Could the Conservatives have picked a more partisan person to chart the course for the CBC?

Conservatives love to point to the CBC as an example of left-wing media bias. I would submit, that the CBC as a public broadcaster merely reflects the general sense in Canada. Like it or not, Canada, as a whole, is a center-left country, why should our broadcaster pander to the margins? This hiring process has no credibililty, and looks like an obvious attempt to move the CBC to more fertile conservative ground. In short, Tom Long is an outrageous choice, which conveys no sense of objectivity or fairness.

Layton: The Canadian Flipper

I know the summer brings a period of slow news coverage, but Maclean's really highlights the trivial, commissioning this poll, that shows Layton as king of the jungle:

When voters were asked to match the leaders, and selected celebrities, to archetypal animals, the initial response for the politicians -- snakes and rats -- was somewhat predictable. But asked to dig deeper, they compared Harper to an industrious ant, busy bee, or proud peacock. The NDP's Jack Layton was a wise owl, friendly dog, or an intelligent dolphin. In contrast, Dion was a timid mouse, scared ostrich, slow cow, or a disposable pet like a fish and hamster.

Only the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe fared worse, evoking voter visions of a stubborn donkey, or pesky black flies and mosquitoes -- largely, perhaps, a reflection of the opinions of English Canadians.

To be fair, there are more substantive questions, but Dion has enough problems with the leadership gap, nevermind introducing the food chain into the equation.

"The Prime Minister was not involved"

Well, of course the Prime Minister was involved, does Sandra Buckler take us all for fools? The same Communications Director Sandra Buckler who was scoulding MP's last week, for speaking with the media and going off message. The same PMO that demands everything pass Harper's desk for approval, prior to any public disclosure. And yet, on a highly sensitive issue, with international ramifications, we are to believe that Stephen Harper was out of the loop. Please:

The Conservative government came under fire yesterday for its decision to censor passages of the Arar commission report that many believe were merely embarrassing to the U.S. and Canadian security officials, and not vital to national security...

ministers" approved the words to be censored.

The government refused to say yesterday which ministers made the decision, although it is likely that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, in charge of CSIS and the RCMP, was one.

Vic Toews, who was justice minister and attorney-general when the commission's report was drafted, was legally responsible for the decision, but it is unclear if his successor, Rob Nicholson, had a role as the case was argued in court after he entered the post in January.

"The Prime Minister was not involved," Sandra Buckler, Mr. Harper's communications director, said in an e-mail.

Mr. Cavalluzzo said that he did not know precisely who in government ordered the passages censored, but he was told it was approved at the highest levels. "I don't know if the cabinet would be, but the Prime Minister and the relevant ministers would be involved.

The fact that Buckler finds it necessary to immediately distance the Prime Minister from the emerging controversy speaks volumes. Me thinks thou dost protest too much Sandra. If Harper didn't know what was happening, on the censorship front, to my mind it will represent the first occasion during his tenure where he was out of the loop on anything. I am willing to take wagers, with generous odds.

Harper Offers The Absurd

I wonder if Harper's head started spinning, when he made the following comment today:

More research is needed to help northern Canada cope with serious challenges caused by global warming, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday.

In the middle of a three-day trip to the North, Harper acknowledged that northern communities are being affected by climate change more than other parts of Canada. He said his government has already set aside funding to help the territories with climate adaptation and intends to look for other solutions in the future.

"We're certainly well aware that climate change creates a range of both challenges and opportunities," Harper told reporters in Yellowknife. "I suspect the International Polar Year [research from international experts] will give us more data on that and over time we'll work with the territorial governments."

More research? You think we need more research to understand the effects of global warming? What an amazing statement, from a man who slashed the climate change research funding by 40% in his first budget, including:

"Included in the cuts is the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network (C-CIARN), a national network that provides funding for targeted research and activities that will contribute to a better understanding of Canada’s vulnerabilities to climate change and provide information necessary for the development of adaptation strategies." Apr 2006

Standing right beside Harper, John Baird:

"Canadian scientists would like to increase their understanding of climate change, but the federal government has been scaling back support for climate science and adaptation programs.

Baird suggested last week there's little time left for more reports and studies in the wake of the UN report.

"One of the biggest findings (of the UN report) is that these (impacts) can be mitigated, can be reduced, can be delayed by action to reduce greenhouse gases, and that's got to be the first, the second, and the third priority," Baird said in an interview with CanWest News Service.

"At some point, it's sort of like the planet's on fire, we've got to throw water on it. We don't need to research it, we need to act."

McBean said Monday "that is a sadly misinformed argument and I'd be happy to set him straight."

He adds other senior scientists would also welcome a meeting with Baird, who he says has steered clear of the climate research community since becoming minister in January.

McBean says Baird seems to be taking a short-term view of a long-term problem: "The only question he seems to be asking is: 'Do we have enough science to justify reducing emissions' ...and the science been clear on that for 15 years."

Emissions reductions are needed and long overdue, says McBean.

The key question Baird doesn't seem to be asking, McBean says, is whether there is enough science to address climate change in Canada for the rest of this century in terms of adaptation and emissions reductions. The answer, says McBean, is no.

His non-profit foundation has received $110 million in federal grants in the last seven years - $60 million in 2000 and $50 million in 2003 - to finance peer-reviewed climate studies at Canadian universities.

A request made last year for $250 million over 10 years to expand the foundation's work has been meet with silence from the Conservative government, says McBean.

He says his repeated requests to meet with the minister have been declined. The foundation has committed all its research money and cannot take on any new projects.

Where do Harper and Baird get off, standing on a stage, arguing that we need more research, given the horrible track record? Astounding. Every move this government has made has been objectively anti-research, as evidenced by their own, less than shy commentary. Harper's comments today are both bizarre and insulting.

Dion Plants The Flag

The Conservatives have virtually ignored the erosion of our manufacturing base, particularly in Ontario. Dion is currently on a tour of the automotive industry, putting some flesh on Liberal trade policy, as it relates to manufacturing:

Liberal leader blasts Canada-South Korea free-trade deal

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion wants to see more Canadian-made cars hit the streets of trading partners, such as South Korea.

But that won't happen unless Canada's free-trade agreements give domestic companies the same privileges in foreign markets as foreign companies have in Canada, Dion said at a news conference in Windsor on Thursday.

Flanked by Canadian automotive leaders in the main lobby of Chrysler's Canadian headquarters, Dion announced his party will not back a Canada-South Korea free trade agreement unless it nixes existing trade barriers and boosts the Canadian industry's ability to compete.

Dion also called on the Conservative government to demand the elimination of all South Korean tariffs and non-tariff barriers, such as arbitrary taxes and oft-changing regulations, that prevent Canadian exports from getting into South Korea.

Dion is filling the political vacuum, and he will find a receptive audience in Ontario. Flaherty mentions productivity, says the Canadian economy is strong and offers that Canada is merely part of a trend within the entire industralized world. There is a definite lack of sensibility, and priority, within Conservative ranks when it comes to the problems in Ontario. Dion can capitalize, and his detailed statements today should give him credibility within the auto sector in particular, manufacturing as a whole.

On Tuesday, Dion announced an Economic Conference in Montreal, slated for September 10, which looks intriguing:

“In Montreal, we are bringing together some of Canada’s leading experts and business leaders to discuss and share ideas on how to meet the challenges of building a strong domestic economy and leveraging Canadian advantages in the global economy,” said Mr. Dion.

“What we hear at Montreal Conference will inform the basis of our Party’s next business platform. We need to make Canada’s economy as productive, competitive and sustainable as possible.”

The conference will feature prominent Canadians from the academic and business communities.

A high profile meeting, that will recommend some firm policy. On the economy, Dion suddenly looks engaged and relevant. A good sign indeed.

We Need A Federal Government

Whenever the Premiers meet, I am reminded why we need a federal government. McGuinty argues for cap and trade, Stelmach argues against cap and trade, Williams warns against moving too fast, Doer says we need to move now, advocates cap and trade, Campbell argues cap and trade and California emission standards, McGuinty not prepared to adopt California emissions standards, Calvert wants green highway, Charest argues that no Premier has the right to impose their will on another province...

It is simply counter-intuitive to expect men with such divergent concerns to come to a consensus. As a matter of fact, apart from wanting more money from Ottawa, there is about as much substance agreed as a neutered G8 meeting. Side deals, disjointed, piecemeal solutions, which leaves the landscape cluttered. Premiers have narrow interests, none of them really capable of any sacrifice that speaks to the "greater good", outside of their tribal concerns. That is the inherent nation of regionalism, and for anyone to assume "open" federalism can function with coherence is kidding themselves.

We need the federal government. Demonizing, easy target, scapegoating aside, if there is to be a national consiousness, a common purpose, a rowing together, then the only organ that speaks to those goals is the federal government. I favor continuity, with a respect or sensitivity for unique circumstances. Canada is drifting toward a tribal mentality (I recently learned that I am an "Ontarian", apparently a new human sub-species). These Premier meetings highlight the debating society that goes nowhere, apart from hodge-podge, patchwork resolutions, that have the impact of further regional divisions. The world is getting smaller, apparently, why is it then that Canada seems to be getting bigger and more distant?

Baird Moving To DFO?

I might be reading between the lines here, but:

He was standing with Environment Minister John Baird as he peered out from a cliff onto the spectacular waterfall coursing through the river valley below.

Then he playfully grabbed Baird under the arm and pretended to pull him out toward the breakneck drop over the 90-metre Virginia Falls - which is twice as tall as Niagara Falls.

"That's one way of shuffling a cabinet," Harper said.

Baird smiled.

Not Ready For Prime Time?

Remember Rick Mercer's "interview" with George Bush, in his Talking To Americans series? Mercer made Bush look like an ignorant fool, with his reference to Prime Minister Jean Poutine. In the spirit of non-partisan fairness, Barrack Obama's gaffe is every bit the equal:

U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, already under fire from fellow Democratic candidates for his supposed inexperience and unguarded comments on American foreign policy issues, is raising eyebrows again after vowing to telephone the "president of Canada" if elected to the White House to begin renegotiating terms of the NAFTA trade deal.

The titular miscue came Tuesday night during a discussion of trade and labour issues at a Democratic debate in the Illinois senator's home base of Chicago.

"I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labour agreements in that agreement right now," Mr. Obama said. "And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street."

It is a bit hard to take Obama seriously on free trade, when he doesn't even have a basic understanding of the players. A minor error in the grand scheme, but the miscue clearly plays into the perception that Obama is a lightweight, when it comes to foreign policy experience.

Obama is already under attack from his rivals, who are trying to frame him as too inexperienced to assume the world's most important office. The Canada reference re-inforces that notion, and I confess some disappointment that he lacks the most basic of knowledge of America's biggest trading partner. The "not ready for prime time" moniker just found another point of reference.

Speaking Of "Common Sense" Ed

Shorter Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach- pollute with impunity:

With oilsands developments proceeding at fever pitch, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is making it clear to provincial colleagues this isn't the time to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions.
Stelmach said he would be encouraging a "common sense" approach to climate change issues during the annual Canadian premiers conference, which began Wednesday in Moncton, N.B.

This isn't just Alberta's boom, it's Canada's boom. Of the job growth from the oilsands, more than half is in Ontario. We'll be reminding the premier of that statistic and the issues that may follow if we don't move ahead very pragmatically."

In my view, "common sense" means an acknowledgement that you can't pollute, with no consequence, when you know that you are intentionally harming the planet. "Pragmatism" means balancing economic prosperity with environmental considerations, as opposed to Stelmach's foot on the gas, hell bent for leather, approach to tarsands expansion.

UPDATE
Excellent blog entry that provides a good synopsis of where Stelmach really stands.

Great Idea

I'm not suggesting this one little measure will change the world, but this should be put under the "great idea" category:

Ontario motorists who drive an environmentally friendly, low-emission vehicle will soon get a green-hued licence plate and access to perks like free parking or access to car-pool lanes under a new provincial program unveiled Wednesday.

The so-called "eco-licence" plate is one of three green transportation policies Ontario's Liberal government hopes will encourage commuters and businesses alike to factor the environment into their spending decisions.

A blend of peer pressure and two-tier driving privileges, should make this initiative relatively effective. If you can offer perks (i.e. free parking, or preferred parking), then you create the impression that you are rewarding the consious, the responsible. People will notice the green licence plates, and it could create a bit of fad.

The NDP is unimpressed:

New Democrat critic Peter Tabuns said he was unimpressed by the announcement, which he called "small potatoes given the scope of the problem before us."
"It's a pretty minor item - I don't know if it'd call a press conference over something like this," he said of the new plate.
"My guess is it would be a very minor impact in terms of people's decision-making in these matters."

My un-partisan response- don't be such a bore. Only a fool would conclude this one announcement, in isolation, will win the day on global warming. However, you put out ideas like the above, with many others and you start to make progress. I like it, and I hope to qualify :)

Goodness Me

Delusional Blogging Tory of the day, has to go to this fine fellow:

This is gonna drive the left nuts: Dubya's poll numbers are actually rising:

...29% in early July (based on our USA Today/Gallup poll readings). Now – in the data just about to be released from our weekend poll – Bush's approval rating has recovered slightly to 34%.

However, standing back & watching the left lose their minds over this is reason enuf to enjoy these new numbers.

I'm sure there are riots in "left" circles, now that only a full 2/3 of all Americans can't stand their President. Clearly, minds are being lost as we speak, as Bush barely registers ahead of that all-time favorite Richard Nixon. Obviously, it's a bloodbath on the left, as people search for answers, while Bush surges to the level of objective dismal and embarrassing. The right can sleep tight, while the those on the "left" are under a collective suicide watch. Can they change the law and allow a third-term, cause I smell a LANDSLIDE?

Exclusive

While the mainstream media reports of a pending cabinet shuffle, I have exclusive information on just who will end up where in the new arrangement. I must say, at first blush, I'm quite impressed with the new team:

Minister of Finance- Stephen Harper

Minister of Foreign Affairs- Steven Harper

Minister of the Environment- Steve Harper

Minister of Health- Stephen Joseph Harper

Minister of International Trade- Stephen Joe Harper

Minister of Justice- Steve Joseph Harper

Minister of Labour- Steven J Harper

Minister of National Defence- S.J Harper

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans- Eldest Son of Margaret Johnston and Joseph Harper

...more later, as becomes available.

Ignatieff Lying In The Weeds

Can a mea culpa be just that, and nothing more? Apparently not, if you listen to Don MacPherson, who assumes Ignatieff has ulterior motives:

History teaches us a would-be leader who waits until the post is vacated to begin campaigning for it usually loses. Ignatieff's article doesn't mention that lesson, but its very publication suggests it's one Ignatieff has learned.

It's not surprising that an MP not yet halfway through the normal duration of a first term should already be preparing himself in public to shoulder the burden of leadership.

It would be nice if the article provided some context for the thesis that Ignatieff is merely laying in the weeds, preparing the ground for Dion’s ultimate failure. Not even a quote from a “senior Liberal” to qualify the motivations for the NYT piece, just pure, superficial speculation.

There is no election imminent, and absolutely no chance that Dion won’t carry the Liberal banner when that election ultimately takes place. To infer that an opinion piece, written in this context, somehow translates into active jockeying is more imagination that proof positive. Maybe Ignatieff is plotting, but there is nothing provided in this article to support that notion, apart from created controversy.

Put A Sock In It

Harper is rallying the troops, claiming farmers are "sick and tired", in the aftermath of his Canadian Wheat Board defeat. Interesting, Harper made the comments in Saskatchewan, where a full 45% of the hopping mad farmers voted for the clear single-desk question, despite the objectively misleading plebicite. Harper will not cave:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says farmers are "sick and tired" of efforts to block changes that would end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on barley sales.
Harper told about 300 Conservative supporters in Lloydminster, Sask., that the battle is not over.

Harper says it may have to wait until next season, but the Conservative government will open the market whether the wheat board likes it or not.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a monopoly, but it is also a representative body:

Since 1998, western Canadian farmers have controlled the CWB through the election of 10 representatives to its 15-member governing board, which oversees the organization and sets its policies and direction. Directors are elected for four-year terms, with elections alternating between odd- and even-numbered districts every two years.

Pardon the lack of a link, but I do believe that in the last election, those supporting a single-desk won the day (which explains Strahl's purposely confused vote). Harper is acting like the CWB is some aloof, detached organization, with no relationship to the real farmers in the field. If farmers were as outraged as Harper continually suggests, why then hasn't the "abolish the monopoly" side not gained control of the board, through elections? Sounds pretty fundamental from here, doesn't it? "Whether the Wheat Board likes it or not" is really divisive language, and another glimpse into the Harper "dark side".

There are many issues out there, but if you had to isolate just one to highlight all that is wrong with this government, the attitude, the tactics, the misleading presentations, it all congeals around the CWB. I'm sick of listening to these poor sports, who cry foul when someone points to the rules. In my mind, thank christ that the courts act as a check on this outrageous process.

As an aside, a great piece by Adrian Measner, the man canned by Strahl, who dared to offer resistence in the holy war (seems appropriate, given the zeal).

Temperature Rising

How do you know when a campaign is entering the critical stage? When candidates start attacking their rivals. John Edwards, and to a lesser degree Barack Obama, have Hillary Clinton in the crosshairs. On lobbyists:

Iowa -- Barack Obama and John Edwards separately castigated Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for defending lobbyists and portrayed her as the consummate Washington insider with special interest ties.

"If you don't think lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, then I believe you've probably been in Washington too long," Obama said Monday. Added Edwards in an Associated Press interview: "Democratic candidates, and for that matter all candidates, should just say we're not taking these peoples' money anymore because it's the way to take their power away from them, and it's the way to bring about the change that this country needs."

On Saturday, the New York senator drew boos and hisses from liberal bloggers when, unlike Edwards and Obama, she refused to forsake campaign donations from the special interest industry. Instead, she said: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do."

Neither Edwards nor Obama accept money directly from federal lobbyists but both take contributions from people who work at firms with lobbying operations.

Clinton opened the door with her defence of lobbyists, which presents a grand opportunity for her rivals to paint her as the "inside the beltway" candidate, detached from ordinary America. The other day I commented on Clinton's gaffe free campaign. I would now like to amend that comment, because this is an issue that resonates, could cause lasting damage and provide a coherent theme from which her opponents can attack. Clinton will never win the complicated question of lobbyists, because the kneejerk impression- they compromise the country's greater interests and convey an element of corruption, compromise through influence. This issue has legs.

Edwards wasn't done attacking Clinton, in a indirect attack, he criticizes the former Clinton administration:

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards on Monday criticized former President Clinton, arguing that he allowed corporate insiders to shape the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement that has cost U.S. jobs...

``It's time that the president stood up and fought for American workers,'' Edwards told a crowd of about 300 people at a union hall in Cedar Rapids. ``It's time to have a president that always puts the interests of the American people first.''

While Edwards' speech did not mention the name Clinton, the object of his complaint was obvious. Edwards criticized the presidential leadership during the 1993 passage of NAFTA, which was started by President George H.W. Bush and pushed through by Clinton. He said the trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada was ``written by insiders in all three countries.''

The Clinton campaign released a statement, framing the attacks as a sign of desperation and a reaction to Hillary's national polling surge. Probably true, but Edwards has woven two seperate examples into a unifying theme. We now have a anti-Hillary rallying cry, let the games begin.

Repair Or Bulldoze?

Probably blasphemy to even suggest this, but would Canada be better off with a new national building, as opposed to throwing money at a lemon:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet have approved an extensive new long-term plan for renovation and reconstruction of the aged and decaying buildings on Parliament Hill.

But the Department of Public Works says the plan will remain secret until September, when the government will also reveal a new timetable for vacating MPs and Commons staff from the crumbling and asbestos-ridden West Block.

Meanwhile, as tourists flock to the Hill this summer, even the deteriorated conditions of pedestrian areas have proven dangerous. A section of stone sidewalk directly under the Peace Tower is now blocked off with a steel fence after an elderly woman recently stumbled on a section that had become loose and struck her head.

The government has now budgeted $13.4 million for an "emergency" stabilization and restoration project for the southeast tower of the West Block alone, Ms. Brosseau said in another e-mail.

A further $6.5 million has already been spent simply erecting scaffolding and protective wrapping -- to protect pedestrians and cars from falling rock or mortar -- on three other West Block towers. The reconstruction is yet to begin, and the cost of the scaffolding and wrapping nets alone, along with supportive steel cables around the towers, suggests the eventual cost of reconstruction will be enormous.

Key word "enormous" cost. The last time I was in Ottawa, I remember the Parliament building being shrouded in scaffolding, which apparently lasted for quite some time. As a student of history, I can appreciate the automatic desire to repair, renovate, re-tool, update, re-model, modernize, afterall the building is a key national symbol. However, if you can detach yourself from the romantic for a minute, I think it an open question whether the nation is better served by a new building, that is naturally equipped to deal with the modern circumstance.

Much of the history could be salvaged within a new structure, not to mention the practical, with a government building able to accomodate growth. Is it better to have structures in perpetual repair? I'm just throwing this opinion out there, should we start fresh?

Blame The Media

In a post I did on the global warming denier crowd, knb made this astute comment as it relates to coverage:

It is disturbing to me that the US is showing more and more of these org's. Deniers, coupled with religious fanatics denying fact, are put out there as if they actually have something to contribute. It's rare to see the theories shot down...they are just out there. For the incredibly un-informed, perhaps they are palatable notions.

This is when the counter is important, the factual counter...but they never seem to do that.

The media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, is set to release a report that confirms the American media's failure to convey the true picture in the global warming "debate". Analysis such as this report helps explain why global warming barely registers on Americans radar:

Mainstream U.S. media are to blame for stalled international efforts to reach an agreement to fight climate change...

...there are multiple examples of major American media organizations watering down recent warnings from peer-reviewed scientific literature about the consequences of global warming and the human-produced pollution that is causing it.

deMause in an interview. "That's the problem. It's not particularly what stand the media takes on what should we do about climate change, it's the information is getting out about climate change, and I think that in the U.S., it's a very limited debate."

He added that the lack of information helps ease the pressure on the U.S. government to accept a new international climate change treaty with binding caps on greenhouse gas pollution.

Thankfully, coverage is more extensive in Canada, but the lack of honest discussion in America is a disgrace. I've seen several recent polls, wherein Americans are asked what issues are important to them. Similar polls in Canada put the environment in the top tier, if not number one, however in America, the issue is non-existent. More alarming, even polls of Democrats show little urgency, which might explain why we generally hear nothing more than minor lip service in the Presidential contests.

The role of media is too inform, engage and educate. The above finding is another example of an American media which is pre-occupied with the trivial, at the expense of serious matters. The report also lends credibility to unbalanced coverage, giving the appearance of real debate, on a question that is largely answered, broadly anyways. Shameful.

Ignatieff Loses His Naivety

Ignatieff's Iraq mea culpa aside, the article he has written for the NYT offers some astute observations about the political arena. It would appear the political novice has a far better understanding of the terrain he now navigates:

Nothing is personal in politics, because politics is theater. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel. It is a common spectacle in legislatures for representatives to insult one another in the chamber and then retreat for a drink in the bar afterward. This saving hypocrisy of public life is not available in private life. There we play for keeps.

In public life, language is a weapon of war and is deployed in conditions of radical distrust. All that matters is what you said, not what you meant. The political realm is a world of lunatic literalism. The slightest crack in your armor — between what you meant and what you said — can be pried open and the knife driven home...

In the real world, bad public policy can often turn out to be very popular politics indeed. Resisting the popular isn't easy, because resisting the popular isn't always wise. Good judgment in politics is messy. It means balancing policy and politics in imperfect compromises that always leave someone unhappy — often yourself.

Knowing the difference between a good and a bad compromise is more important in politics than holding onto pure principle at any price. A good compromise restores the peace and enables both parties to go about their business with some element of their vital interest satisfied. A bad one surrenders the public interest to compulsion or force.

During the leadership race, it became clear that Ignatieff's greatest enemy was his unedited candor. The term reckless seemed apt, because Ignatieff was constantly amending and clarifying, with what amounted to self-inflicted wounds. There was the impression that the academic didn't understand politics, and this reality clearly hurt his chances when push came to shove. Intellectual musings didn't quite jive with soundbite, gotcha politics. Policy aside, an objective shame, but you can't change the climate you operate in.

I remember having the opportunity to speak with Ignatieff about his environmental plan. I was really impressed with the bold measures, but I asked him if he thought he would pay a political price for some of the more controversial items, particularly the carbon tax idea. Ignatieff's response, he wasn't concerned, because he felt that it was the right thing to do. Period. Completely refreshing, a rarity in today's environment. However, that doesn't mean this approach can work in today's superficial political environment. It's an open question if someone like Ignatieff is suited to be a politician, I would hazard a guess that even Trudeau would be hard-pressed to survive in the new politics. Sound policy is replaced by sound message, avoid any landmines at all costs, principle comes second for the most part.

Ignatieff's article conveys a new-found political maturity. I'm not sure if that is an advancement in thought, or a surrender to dynamics that aren't necessarily attractive or beneficial. Maybe a better politician, but I'm of the opinion, that is a negative, in the grand scheme.

Typing In The Dark

I quick glance at The Blogging Tories website, reveals a great deal of wasted energy denying the undeniable. One blogger mocks global warming, another genius thinks he has uncovered a graph that explains it all away. Another blogger scours the globe, looking for any exception to a general warming trend. Someone claiming to be a doctor(back of matchbook), attacks environmentalism. All this nonsense, without even mentioning Small Dead Animals. Another day in the flat earth society.

A very interesting synopsis of the denier movement, that shows the historical pattern to confuse and fog the debate, giving fuel to the sheep that so what to ignore. A good article, some highlights:

As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change....

they are emphasizing a new theme. Even if the world is warming now, and even if that warming is due in part to the greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels, there's nothing to worry about. As Lindzen wrote in a guest editorial in NEWSWEEK International in April, "There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe."

What a shame that many Conservative bloggers invest all their passion attacking a truism, desperately attaching themselves to any rogue tidbit to justify their irrational stubbornness. Measurable science has somehow been bastardized into mere opinion. You can offer a thousand examples of glaciers in retreat, but all we hear is Gore was wrong about Kilimanjaro. Warming trends everywhere, but they focus on a cold season anywhere they can find one on the globe. For every dissenting paper, a thousand in support, yet they cling to the denier, as though a balance exists. I'm all for debate, all for not stifling opinion, but I'm also of the mindset that every lunatic doesn't merit a podium. Apparently, common sense isn't so common.

Clinton Pulling Away?

If you look at the latest trends in the national polls, it would appear that Clinton is pulling away from Obama in a two-person race, with Edwards fading. If you average all the polls from mid July to the present, you find the following:

Clinton 41%
Obama 24%
Edwards 11.3%
Gore (where included) 11.7%

As early as mid-June, the gap between the two frontrunners was around 9%. Since that time, Clinton's support has swelled, while Obama has remained stagnant. These trends, in spite of the fact, that Obama outpaced Clinton in fundraising for the second quarter, in both the number of donors and total figures. The current gap in support of 17% is large by any measure, which suggests a measure of "inevitability" around Clinton.

However, national polls are a very incomplete part of the story in the Democratic primary system, the state findings convey a much more competitive race, with no clear frontrunner. In the Iowa, first in the nation caucus, the average polling finds:

Clinton 26%
Edwards 24.7%
Obama 19.3%
Richardson 11.7%

Translation-still anybody's to win, with an incredible amount of momentum at stake. We also see stagnant numbers, which means Clinton's national uptick hasn't translated to Iowa itself.

Nevada caucus, five days after Iowa:

Clinton 41%
Obama 18%
Edwards 8%

Of all the early contests, probably the least significant, given the more robust campaigning in Iowa, and the looming vote in New Hampshire. I don't consider this a make or break caucus for any of the contenders.

Next up, the all important first primary in New Hampshire. Again, a tight race:

Clinton 30.3%
Obama 26.3%
Edwards 10.7%
Richardson 8.3%

Obama has the momentum here, with Edwards fading badly, Clinton stagnant. Another important factor, Clinton's negatives are almost double Obama's in New Hampshire, which would tend to give Obama the edge in ability to grow his numbers in the future

South Carolina primary next, again no clear gap:

Clinton 34%
Obama 30%
Edwards 14.5%

The trends show a tightening, Clinton actually enjoyed a wider margin in earlier polls. Pretty weak numbers for Edwards, considering his supposed "southern appeal".

Florida, same day:

Clinton 39.5%
Obama 17.8%
Edwards 10.8%

The one state, where Clinton enjoys a massive lead. However, if Obama could pull off South Carolina, which is feasible, no one emerges with any clear momentum.

If you look at other state polls, you find Clinton well ahead, but those are largely irrelevant, when you factor in the historical significance of these early contests. The good news for Clinton, she is the only one to score well in all the races, whereas the others show some weakness. You could still classify Clinton as the frontrunner, but the primary picture is far different than the national polling suggests.

Did You Know?

I was thinking about Harper's tenious relationship with many of the Premiers, the lack of diplomatic flair. In Canada, one of the great exercises in federal-provincial relations are the First Minister Conferences. Did you know, that there are only four Prime Minister's that haven't held a FMC since they were first initiated in 1906? John Turner, who held office for 78 days, Kim Campbell, who held office for four months, Arthur Meighen in 1921 and our current Prime Minister. In fact, since 1950, this is the longest period that Canada has ever gone without a First Minister's Conference.

Harper Snubs Another Premier

Did Harper skip diplomacy 101? Put this under the "missed opportunity" category, and another example of Harper's political tin ear:

Stephen Harper is in Newfoundland to visit areas damaged by post-tropical storm Chantal, but Premier Danny Williams is fuming that the prime minister didn't tell him he was coming.

Harper's office revealed his plan to visit the province about two hours before he was to board a coast guard helicopter in St. John's.

"We just heard this morning through the media that he was coming to town,'' Williams said in an interview.

"Our (federal and provincial) ministers were talking last night on the phone and there was no mention made of the PM coming to town. So I'm just disappointed. In an emergency situation like this, at least the common courtesy of a phone call to say he was visiting ... I could have attended at the site with him.''

The obvious:

"It's would be nice in situations like this if leaders, especially the prime minister of the country, can rise above other differences ... because when people's homes are being washed away and their lives are being washed away before their very eyes, that's the time that they see their government there to support them."

This was a golden opportunity, for Harper to stand beside Williams, showing that people can still come together during a crisis. If Harper was shrewd, his staff could have contacted Williams, made it clear that the visit should focus on the flooding, and enjoyed a nice photo-op to help repair his battered image in the province. Instead, Harper snubs another Premier, which leaves a negative impression, for a appearance that was supposed to convey sensitivity.

This incident is a perfect contrast to Harper's earlier claims of "national unity" in PEI. No dialogue whatsoever, with anyone who dares to offer dissent. Kumbaya, kumbaya.

Harper: "One Way Or The Other"

Talk about a SORE loser, Stephen Harper can't seem to accept defeat. To be truthful, his singular zeal to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board is a tad scary:

"Whether it takes a little bit of time or a lot of time, it's going to happen,'' Harper told reporters Thursday at a caucus meeting in Charlottetown.

A Federal Court judge quashed the government's attempt to end the monopoly this week, saying the change made by the Tory cabinet in the spring was beyond cabinet's authority. Judge Dolores Hansen sided with wheat board supporters and said the change would have to be approved by Parliament.

"(The ruling) does not change the determination of the government of Canada to see a dual market for Canadian farmers," Harper said.

"I hope the wheat board will start working with the government to make sure this is going to happen, 'cause it's going to happen one way or another."

Harper did not say whether he might appeal the ruling, try to get the change through the House of Commons, or try some other method.

Wheat board chairman Ken Ritter said he understands the Tories campaigned on a promise to end the wheat board monopoly and allow farmers to sell independently.

But he said most farmers support the current system, and Harper's minority government would be hard-pressed to get support from the opposition parties to get changes approved in the House of Commons.

Sounding more like an obsessed, vindictive thug, than a Prime Minister, Harper's "one way or another" crack reveals the inner ideologue so often masked by the chasing of polls. The funny part, the government's sham of a plebsicite was so flawed, both sides can claim victory:

Harper is not swayed.

"Canadian farmers have spoken very clearly that they want to see this barley market open,'' he said.

The Canadian Wheat Board says farmers support them, Harper says they support choice, such is the case when you purposely confuse clarity, primarily because you KNOW you'll lose.

Harper's off the cuff, aggressive remarks, betray a great deal about the man, and another reason why he fears the unedited soundbite. The only relevant question, does the majority support the government action? According to our legal system, Harper needs that majority, through representation to achieve his aim. Stop acting like a poor sport, play by the rules and take it like a man. In my mind, a lot of the resistence isn't even about "choice", but the obscene tactics employed by this government on everything Wheat Board, since they took office. Removing people, stifling opinion, using taxpayer money to shovel propaganda, voluntarily skewing the questions to get a favorable result, a disgrace all around. Bully.

Palestinian Poll

Negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis seem to building a healthy lather, with the potential to deal with the "fundamental issues", once and for all. One of the stumbling blocks in some quarters- is the Abbas government legitimate? Afterall, democracy is the supposed pillar of legitimacy in the eyes of the west. Isolating Hamas creates some obvious problems, depending on your point of view.

A few weeks ago, there was a poll of Gaza residents, which seemed to show that Hamas didn't enjoy the support of Palestinians in that terrority. I saw a far more comprehensive poll today, including all Palestinians, which suggests that Fatah can claim pseudo legitimacy as representative of the people:

If presidential elections were conducted in the present time to whom would you give your vote?

The Fatah candidate
55.3%

The Hamas candidate
15.8%

Other / Not sure
18.9%



If legislative elections were conducted in the present time to whom would you give your vote?

Fatah candidates
54.4%

Hamas candidates
16.4%

Other / Not sure
29.2%

Source: An-Najah National University
Methodology: Interviews with 1,361 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, conducted on Jul. 25 to Jul. 27, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

I don't mean to argue a couple of polls usurps actual voting, but an fair read of this finding shows Fatah with overwhelming support. At the very least, the idea that the legitimate voice of the Palestinians has been silenced in negotiations is less persuasive. The polls finding would also lend itself to the idea that Abbas is justified in calling early elections, logistics aside.

The support for Hamas looks to have waned, despite the takeover. In fact, IMHO, the Hamas electoral surge was always more a protest against a corrupt and ineffective Fatah, than it was an actual endorsement of a radical agenda.

Senate Climate Bill

A new global warming bill is set to be introduced in the American Congress today. Joe Lieberman is co-sponsoring the bill, which is hardly surprising given his historical position. However, what is particularly intriguing, the other sponsor is Republican John Warner, which may be a signal that the "climate" is changing in Washington:

Two key senators said they will outline a comprehensive climate change bill today that could become the centerpiece of legislative efforts to slow global warming.

The framework includes a Federal Reserve-style board to help contain carbon costs, a 70 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from current levels by 2050 and the creation of a federal Climate Change Credit Corp. that would auction a large share of emission allowances and use the proceeds to promote new technologies.

Warner:

Lieberman has twice co-sponsored a climate change bill with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that was defeated in the Senate. Warner voted against it both times, so his support for a new measure signals shifting congressional opinion and improving prospects for passage of climate legislation.

"At that point in time, I had not sufficiently focused on this, and it was prior to a lot of scientific data that has come out," Warner said yesterday. Now, he added, "I feel an obligation to put something before the Senate."

Warner said he was also prodded by retired Gen. James L. Jones and other former military officers who urged him to back a bill to slow global warming

You have the chairman, and the ranking Republican, of the global warming sub-committee presenting a united front, which should give this legislation a fighting chance.

As an aside, neither of these individuals classify as "left-wing moonbats", as our Blogging Tory friends like to say.

Going Nowhere

Despite bragging about the government's achievements, Harper and the Conservatives remain stuck in the polls:

A new Ipsos Reid poll finds that the Conservatives, at 34% support nationally...some Tories may be scratching their heads to figure out what they have to do to pull away from the Liberal Party that follows closely at 32% support nationally. The New Democratic Party, under the leadership of Jack Layton, has also settled in at 17% support. The Bloc Quebecois has dropped 2% points nationally, receiving the support of 8% of Canadians, the same as the Green Party.

Once again, Ipsos has some bizarre regional totals, with concerning margin of errors. Does anyone really believe these results for British Columbia, particularly the woeful NDP numbers?:

Cons 37%
Libs 35%
NDP 17%
Greens 11%

All the other polls, show a three-way, tight race in British Columbia, so I would characterize the NDP showing as a anomaly.

The only provinces with reasonable margins of error, that you can have any confidence in, are the Ontario and Quebec results. Both show some reason for optimism for the Liberals:

Ontario

Libs 40%
Cons 35%
NDP 16%
Greens 8%

Quebec

Bloc 33%
Libs 23%
Cons 23%
NDP 13%
Greens 7%

Ontario numbers mirror the last poll, while the Quebec results show a marked uptick for the Liberals(+5%), and further Bloc erosion (-4%).

Liberal Fundraising Improves

The latest quarterly fundraising figures show a marked uptick in Liberal donations, over the previous period. While the Liberals still trail the Conservatives badly, the margin is decidedly less, and the trends relatively encouraging. The first quarter numbers for context:

The Liberals managed to raise only $531,141 from 4,365 donors, quarterly fundraising results posted Tuesday by Elections Canada show. The Conservatives raised almost $5.2-million from over 45,000 contributors, while the NDP attracted $1.2-million from nearly 15,000 donors. The Bloc Québecois, which gets money strictly from public subsidies paid to parties, raised slightly under $35,000.
The Green party, which has no representation in the House of Commons, raised almost $155,000.

The second quarter numbers:

Conservative Party: $3.8-million from 36,800 contributors

Liberal Party: $1.3-million from 10,000 contributors

New Democratic Party: $720,000 from 11,800 contributors

Green Party: $200,000 from 2,800 contributors

Bloc Québécois: $27,900 from 360 contributors

The Liberals and Greens were the only ones to increase their donations, with the Liberals doubling the donors, almost tripling the total. A degree of false momentum, given the "convention hangover" in the first quarter, but a far cry from the bleak headlines last quarter that showed the Conservatives with 10x the donations. As a matter of fact, speaking of momentum, while the Conservatives are still well ahead, their contributions are down 25% in this quarter.

Before someone accuses me of getting carried away, these numbers are still relatively poor for the Liberals, I'm just acknowledging the apparent improvement from the earlier abysmal.