A Strong Choice

Anyone who bothered to watch the Democratic primary debates won't find this comment shocking- Joe Biden out classed everyone on stage, on many different occasions. Review the pundit scorecards, it will bear this fact out, everyone left to wonder why Biden wasn't benefiting from his strong performances. Well, the simple fact, Obama, Clinton and to lesser extend Edwards had taken the oxygen out of the room, the "star" power left Biden as respected, but primarily an also ran.

Joe Biden has had his historical moments, some would argue if not for previous gaffes, he would have been a serious presidential player. I don't always agree with Biden, but there is no question he is a pitbull, passionate, off the cuff, demonstrating refreshing candor, a pretty engaging figure. Couple the persona with the experience, easily one of the most respected Democrats on foreign policy, and you can see why Obama gave Biden the nod.

The VP selection generally gets some press for a few days, then it is relegated to the backpages, apart from occasional "moments". The VP only really shines in the debate, and this is where Obama's strategy should pay off. A theoretical Biden vs Romney would be a potential slamdunk for the Democrats. Aside from that, Biden actually could buck conventional wisdom and make some waves through the process. Biden is highly quotable, not afraid to attack relentlessly, do the dirty work for Obama, allowing him to project a Presidential air. All things considered, a good choice, somewhat risky, but solid.

As an aside, I notice Jason is framing this decision as a sign of fear. That's fine, but this quote deserves a response:

Now, when it came time to pick the number 2, he went with bland and boring.

Biden is a lot of thing, "bland and boring" about the last adjectives I would choose. I thought this video a good representation, one that shows Obama's selection of Biden is anything but Jason's characterization. This is what Obama is banking on:



Bland?

Nova Scotia Premier Can't Handle The Truth

Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald's inclusion of the carbon tax calculator on his party's website, is actually a testament to the wisdom of the Green Shift. Huh?

This is simple logic, and a clear example of the Conservatives inability to present an honest argument. IF, as Premier MacDonald argues, the Green Shift will place a heavy burden on Nova Scotians, then he should have no problem demonstrating this with any calculation. The fact that this calculator OMITS the taxcut component of the Green Shift, presenting only half the equation, is a clear indication that the plan isn't the burden he argues. Why not include the entire package Mr. MacDonald, if your are being truthful, then you should have no problem showing the people of Nova Scotia the true cost?

The plan will hurt Nova Scotians, well then, why the need for an disingenious calculation? I mean, it's a tax grab, put it out there and show people the Liberals ruse. INSTEAD, it is MacDonald that is forced to misrepresent, which speaks volumes about his own rhetoric. Why is MacDonald afraid to deal with the policy, forced to manipulate to show a dishonest conclusion? That's the issue here, it obviously isn't as bad as you suggest, otherwise you would have no qualms about an accurate calculation. The fact the Premier has resorted to incomplete propaganda is really a indicator of who wants a real dialogue, and who can't deal with the facts, but must resort to lying to the voters.

This calculator says more about Mr. MacDonald than it does about the Green Shift. In fact, the inability to present the complete picture, is really an indication that the Green Shift is balanced, we need to ignore this dimension, otherwise our fear mongering EVAPORATES.

What's Your Hurry?

Something is up, it's as simple as that. There is a reason Harper is suddenly so bullish for an election, and it has nothing to do with the reasons we've been given to date. The question for the Liberals, deciphering just what exactly the Conservatives are up to, and responding accordingly. I'm of the belief that you never give your opponent what he wants, if you can help it. I have several theories, and here's one.

Today, Minister Flaherty released the latest surplus figures, which suddenly show Canada back in a comfortable surplus, a complete reversal in just one month. Flaherty also "pledged" to do a fiscal update sometime in October, and update that will never happen if Harper takes us to the polls prior to Parliament's return. So, while government Ministers are clearing their September schedules, is it credible for Flaherty to muse as though it's business as usual? Pardon my cynicism, but it just doesn't add up.

In the first two months of this fiscal year, we had a 500 million dollar deficit. Then, in just one month, Flaherty announces a quarterly surplus of 1.2 billion. That translates to a 1.7 billion dollar surplus in the last month reported, which is a staggering figure, considering Flaherty projected a scant 2.3 billion surplus for the entire fiscal year, a figure which was based on a 1.7% growth rate. Today, Flaherty admits that the growth rate will be 1.1%, a large drop from his earlier projection. And yet, despite increased spending and all these economic warnings, we are to believe that Flaherty is half way to his surplus in just the first quarter? That doesn't pass the smell test, especially when one considers Flaherty's previous proficency in moving numbers around. A sudden fiscal turnaround, just after talking heat for the initial deficit, occuring at the same time when Flaherty reduces his grow projection by a full third. If anything, one would expect the surplus to be behind Flaherty's targets, given the growth drop that he admitted today, not a sudden uptick. Couple this quirk in logic with the simple fact that the economy has really started to tank this summer, and the numbers look even more suspicious.

Back to one of my theories. Is Harper moving so fast, because the government has knowledge of a looming deficit? Isn't it interesting, that just as we hear all this election talk, presto, back in the black, in a big way, so much so, that even if another monthly update is released during an election, the buffer is enough to keep the perception of "in the red" at bay? The timing is a little too cute from here, and it becomes even more intriguing when you hear Flaherty floating his October update, while everyone around him goes full tilt into election mode. Harper wants to get to the polls, before he has to face the economic and fiscal music.

What Are You Afraid Of Mr. Harper?

All these supposed achievements, all this conviction and drive, all these ideas to move Canada forward, and yet, Harper hides from voters. The good news, Harper's cynical attempts to manipulate and control are blowing up in face, revealing a stark contrast with his main competitor. What are you afraid of Mr. Harper?:

Nine words won't soften up this turf

In London he didn't talk. Actually, he did. Nine words during a 71-second event billed as a "photo opportunity" at the General Dynamics Land Systems plant on Oxford Street East.

Staff from the Prime Minister's Office had stipulated only media carrying cameras or video recording equipment would be allowed to witness this moment in history. I had to borrow a palm-sized video recorder from a photographer to get around this ban. And then, once inside, a Harper staffer buttonholed me and said: "No questions. We let you in, but there can be no questions. Promise?" I agreed. Moments later, at the behest of the same PMO staffer, a General Dynamics official confrontedme again and warned: "No questions from the floor. That's the deal. Any questions and it's over."

Any questions, and "it's over"? Meanwhile, in another part of the province, Stephane Dion talks with voters, in a unscripted, spontaneous town hall, attended by friend and foe alike. The chasm is striking, and one has to wonder if Canadians are best served by rewarding an approach which treats them with such disdain. You will get our propaganda, our marketing campaign, but you don't deserve a dialogue. The arrogance is staggering, but it remains to be seen whether Harper is right to assume voters lack the sophistication to see through the staged presentation.

The strategy assumes you have something to hide, that in reality, the Conservatives don't trust their own leader to convey a message to the people. I wonder how it is that Conservative supporters can condone this approach, especially those with Reform roots, this strategy so diametrically opposed to the core tenets. Your leader is effectively a mascot, who waves and nods, but doesn't mingle with the masses. The most elitist, detached, top down organization in Canadian history, a complete departure from all the lofty rhetoric of the past.

Stephen Harper is a manufactured fraud, apparently so inept and wooden, he lacks the most basic of political characteristics, the ability to speak to his constituents. How anyone can endorse this approach, partisan or not, is beyond me.

Out In The Open

Reading La Presse, they are reporting on the likelihood of Harper calling an election prior to Parliament's return on September 15th. According to Conservative sources:

"The option to call a general election before the resumption of parliamentary is on the table. Everything will depend on the results of meetings with the heads of the other parties"

When I first heard of the meeting, at Harper's request, it seemed unusual, given his style. I actually take the above quote as entirely true, because it fits nicely with the emerging Harper election rationalization. We already know how Duceppe and Layton will react, leaving the discussion between Dion and Harper as key. In a sense, I see this meeting as a trap, Harper can use this dialogue to justify the "dysfunctional" argument. Pretty easy to picture the following- Harper emerges from his meeting with Dion and tells Canadians he sees no common purpose, it is clear from Dion's stance that Parliament can't work. In this way, Harper takes the onus off himself, attempting to show he extended an olive branch only to be rebuffed by the other parties. Harper throws up his hands and calls an election.

There was a curious development last week, Harper's calling of another byelection, to take place after Parliament reconvenes. This call wasn't necessary, but its timing is quite revealing in my estimation. What better way to send mixed messages to the opposition, than to float the idea of a quick election call, then throw in a by-election to make it appear that Parliament would reconvene? It's the kind of gamesmanship Harper loves, this belief in keeping others off balance. This latest by-election call isn't what it appears, and I see it as a way to get the dogs off the scent.

La Presse speculates that the election would take place on October 20th or 27th, just prior to the American contest. In many ways, I can understand Harper's hurry, I honestly think the decision has already been made. Whether he can or not, is another matter, but easy to see why calling an election before Parliament reconvenes is advantageous. If you sense the opposition wants an election, why give them a high profile forum to make their case, why allow them to batter the government, soften them up prior to a vote? Moving prior, allows Harper to go on his own terms, without the limelight of pesky accountability, the spectre of scandal. If we see a real ramp up in Conservative ads in the next couple of weeks, it will provide another clue.

I think the economy is tanking, beyond what Flaherty projected. I also think the next financial release could well show a further deficit, something which isn't easily fluffed off like the previous update. How can the government make their case, if we have another indicator of fiscal mismanagement? A slumping economy, a government who will be on defensive if they pass out typical election goodies, not a optimal situation for Harper. Better to go sooner, before the chickens come home to roost.

Harper has revealed himself, if we read between the lines. This allows the Liberals to react with that knowledge, and Dion could well short circuit this ultimatum style meeting with his own preamble. I think Harper has already decided, what could he possibly think could come of these face to face meetings? It's a joke really, there is nothing constructive about it. The smart play is to assume, and react in a magnanimous way, don't give Harper the cover he desperately needs to rationalize. We want to see what the government proposes when Parliament returns, and we will react depending on their proposals. Any thoughts of an election call prior to the return, shows Harper is desperate to avoid scrutiny, he is worried about scandal, he is manufacturing a crisis that doesn't exist. The Harper argument is really a nonsensical one, the only way it works is if we fall for his trap by appearing combative.

Beautiful

My first thought, when I read about the Conservatives plan to privatize food inspection, was that the Liberals would be wise to draw a comparison to Mike Harris and Walkerton. Apparently, I wasn't alone, Mr. Dion goes for the jugular:

Dion links Walkerton, planned cuts to food scrutiny


The cabinet document, which has not been approved, outlines plans by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to give the food industry a greater role in the inspection process. It also spells out plans to cut millions in federal spending on surveillance for mad-cow disease.

"It's unacceptable," Mr. Dion told reporters during a stop in Toronto.

"These are the same people – Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Baird, Mr. Clement – who are responsible [for] what happened in Walkerton, who privatized [Ontario's] propane inspection, and they want to do something equivalent about food inspections, which is at the core of what the government should do," he said.

"This very conservative government does not understand what is at the core of the responsibility of a government in a society."

I've always believed, that all of the old Harris surrogates in the Harper government could come back to haunt them in Ontario. Dion uses this cabinet document, to not only scold the government for cutting food saftey, but too remind Ontarians of what happened with the previous provincial government. That comparison equates to political gold for the Liberals, the issue of Walkerton and the Harris government's complicity, are still very fresh in the minds of voters. Any sense that this gang, which just happens to be the same old gang are implementing the same sort of ideology, and the Conservatives take a very large hit.

Like I said earlier, when I first heard the story, I immediately thought of Walkerton, and it wasn't even a tactical thought. Dion is quite shrewd here, because I suspect I'm not the only one who can see the similarities, whether it be the actors or the plot. Right between the eyes.

Bad Trends

No wonder Harper is itching for an election, he has passed his best before date:

As prospects for a fall election grow, a new survey indicates public satisfaction with the Harper government has deteriorated since last fall.

The extensive survey, conducted for the Privy Council Office, found Canadians are split in their judgment of the government's performance, with 34 per cent positive and 35 per cent negative. The rest are neutral.

In the previous Harris/Decima survey in December 2007, 35 per cent expressed satisfaction with the government's performance, while 30 per cent gave it thumbs down.

The results offer scant encouragement to a Conservative government that nonetheless seems eager to trigger an election this fall. In nearly every policy area, the public mood is noticeably more sour than it was late last year.

The government gets some of its worst marks for accountability, a supposed priority area, with just 28 per cent positive and 42 per cent negative. Only on climate change is its performance more harshly judged.

Ominously for the Conservatives, the survey found that satisfaction ratings have declined across the board since December, even in areas where the government's marks are still positive.

Even one of the government's touchstone issues - crime and justice - isn't playing particularly well. While the number giving the government good marks has risen slightly, to 37 per cent from 34 per cent last December, negative ratings have jumped even more, to 38 per cent.

There's also been a big slide in satisfaction with the government's handling of the economy. Last December, nearly half said it was doing a good job of economic management. In the latest survey, that fell to just 39 per cent, while the number expressing dissatisfaction shot up to 30 per cent from 19 per cent.

Those are dreadful numbers, especially when you consider accountability and crime are supposed strengths.

Conclusion: The more we see, the less we like.

Where Did He Say That Exactly?

I saw this headline "NBers oppose carbon tax: premier" on NNW, so I followed the link, and sure enough the actual article uses the same headline. So, I read through the article and can't quite seem to find where Premier Graham said anything remotely close to what the headline suggests. Here's what Graham did say:

"Very clearly, New Brunswickers are not in agreement, from what we've heard from the consultations held to date," Graham said yesterday.

"Our government is attentive to that but we'll only be (able to give) a proper response to the actual committee report when we hear it later this fall."

All Graham said is there is no clear agreement on a carbon tax, how that equates to NBer's oppose carbon tax escapes me. The very quote itself implies that SOME do support the carbon tax, SOME others don't. A majority may very well reject the idea, there does seem to be quite a lot of resistence, from what I've read from afar. However, there is nothing said in this article that makes that headline credible.

What about "Premier: NBer's Divided On Carbon Tax", or "Premier: Lack of Consensus on Carbon Tax", much better than some definitive nonsense, that isn't borne out in the comments. A pet peeve, small stuff in the grand scheme, but they don't call them headlines for nothing, and that is why they shouldn't misrepresent.

Bosom Buddies

I think were going to find this new Registrar of Lobbyists database very intriguing. July looked like a particularly good month for big oil:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's senior advisers filled their calendars in July with one-on-one meetings with some of the country's biggest oil companies, including Shell, Petro-Canada and Suncor.

Newly released federal records show that half of the lobby groups who got some face time with the PMO last month were energy companies, or their industry associations.

Oilsands giants Suncor Energy, Petro-Canada and Shell Canada also had dozens of meetings on Parliament Hill with top ministerial advisers, including some with senior Harper advisers. Additionally, Petro-Canada representatives had a one-on-one meeting with Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Shell had a meeting with Environment Minister John Baird.

Hazell said his organization has had meetings over the last 18 months with PMO staffers but says other green lobby groups have had less success. In Hazell's view, Harper's PMO tries to punish its harshest critics by limiting access to influential decision-makers within the PMO.

Strange, that as the government was supposedly putting the finishing touches on its greenhouse gases regulatory framework, nobody in this government met with anybody but oil interests. "Dozens of meetings" with oil execs, and yet nary a visit from other organizations? In fact, HALF of ALL visits for the entire month, were with oil interests, a staggering percentage, given the sheer volume of issues the government faces. You know what a cynic would say, or anybody with common sense for that matter.

Kory Teneycke was quick to point out, that this is only the first month for the database. Now that government realizes this new transparency, what do you want to bet that we start seeing a more balanced "meetings" calendar in the coming months? Optics are everything you know.

Debt Free

Dion on target to clear all leadership debts prior to the return of Parliament. Pretty impressive to clear $ 250 000 in a matter of weeks (translated):

"The debt should be settled in September, perhaps even before the start of the September 15 return of Parliament"said the Liberal source.

What will Pierre say? More importantly, this might show what the Liberals can do on the fundraising side when they have a focus. I also find this interesting, given what I was told about a "noticeable" uptick with the Victory Fund in the last few weeks, which means party fundraising isn't necessarily hurt because of the effort to clear Dion's debt. In fairness to Dion, he never really made a concerted effort to pay down his debt, and I actually applaud him for trying to raise money for the party, rather than himself. That said, it would be great if the debt was cleared heading into an election, for a number of reasons.

Good stuff.

Read Your Own Act Mr. Harper

Harper is at it again today, this time blaming the opposition for not adhering to his own Fixed Election Dates Act. Harper:

It's clear that none of the opposition parties intend to hold out until the fixed election date of October 2009, he added.

"They have no intention of respecting the fixed election date," Harper said. "So I think obviously we're going to have to judge how the parliamentary agenda is unfolding."

Actually, Mr. Harper, the opposition doesn't have to respect the fixed election date, you allowed for this provision in your own Act:

The Fixed Election Dates Act establishes that Canadian federal elections be held every four years on a fixed date, except when the government loses the confidence of the House, in which case an election would be held immediately.

The opposition has the power to vote non-confidence when it so chooses, despite the fixed dates, so Harper's rationalization doesn't fly. Actually Mr. Harper, this is really the only relevant point here, what about FAIRNESS:

Fairness - A fixed election date eliminates the advantage given to the government party to call an election when conditions are favourable to that party.

Canadians are clearly warming to an election, and in the end, Harper can go to the GG to dissolve Parliament. However, even with this growing sentiment, there will still be the unease of comparing the Harper rhetoric, actually enshrined into law, with the flimsy justifications. Harper should rightly start any election campaign with questions on the apparent hypocrisy. Hopefully someone can examine just how much energy, time and money was wasted crafting legislation which is nothing but a public relations fraud in the end.

New Poll

Ipsos Reid poll, on Canadians desire for an election, as well as the requisite horserace numbers. First the party numbers, not much change nationally, although an apparent swing in Quebec (cough):

It put the Conservatives’ popularity at 36 per cent, the Liberals at 30 per cent, the NDP at 14 per cent and the Green party at 10 per cent. Six per cent were undecided.

That puts the Conservative up two points since the last Ipsos poll(end of July), Liberals unchanged, same for the NDP, Greens down one. The Conservatives have their talking poll back, although I would mention that Decima has decidedly different results, and NANOS looks set to release a new one soon.

The strange part of this poll:

On party popularity, the survey said the Conservatives maintained their substantial lead in western Canada, and picked up support in Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada since early July so they are now in a statistical dead heat with the Liberals in those three regions. In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois had 34 per cent of the popular vote, well ahead of the Liberal and Conservative parties which were tied at 25 per cent.

Quite a different result from the last Ipsos poll, which had the Conservatives at a scant 18% in Quebec. The Liberals are down 2%, the Bloc 3%. I fail to see why there would be such a wide difference in the Conservatives numbers, although the margin of error tends to be 6%. This change explains Ipsos uptick in the Conservative numbers, take it for what it's worth.

Where I really think Ipsos has it wrong, the supposed statistical dead heats in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Now, Atlantic Canada numbers are always dubious, given the sample size size, so a sizeable "whatever" to that one. The Ontario numbers are consistent with Ipsos tending to show a much closer race than other pollsters. As a side note, NANOS just released an Ontario provincial poll, that put the Liberals up 10%. While you can't make the jump, that number is in line with the federal numbers most pollsters show for the province, another small indication of Ipsos possibly being an outlier. Until someone else verifies these numbers, I chalk it up to the usual with Ipsos, shorter version, sorry not buying.

A curious comment from the pollster:

“The Tories are competitive where they need to be competitive. The Liberals are competitive where they need to be competitive. If they do decide to throw down (the gauntlet), it’s going to be a very interesting fight.”

I confess to not understanding that comment, given the poll findings. If the Cons are statistically tied in Ontario, Atlantic Canada, then the Liberals would lose seats in areas where "they need to be competitive". Maybe he isn't sold either ;)

What is interesting, Canadians seem ready for an election:

The poll says the proportion of Canadians who favour an election “to clear the air” has risen to 40 per cent from 27 per cent in March. Moreover, the proportion of Canadians who said “there’s no need for an election at the moment” dropped dramatically to 38 per cent from 66 per cent. Almost one in four, or 23 per cent, said they did not know which statement best captured their views, up from seven per cent in March.

Pollster Darrell Bricker says the findings suggest signals from Harper and the Liberal leader that they are itching for an election fight are starting to have an impact on what Canadians are thinking.

Okay, let's go already.

On Fundraising

Reading an article on Gerard Kennedy, I was struck by this sentence:

He also became disenchanted that the party renewal Mr. Dion had pledged to promote wasn't happening.

I'm not even sure I buy the above as true, so this post isn't about stirring the pot. However, I've always believed, and this is one of the reasons I supported him and joined the party, that Kennedy "gets it" when he speaks of party renewal. That stance has irked some people, entrenched interests never react particularly well to talk of insurgencies, or criticisms. But, in the final analysis, it speaks to the notions of entitlement, it understands that the Liberals tend to be lacking, relative to other parties, when it comes to grassroots support.

Which leads us to fundraising. The new fundraising rules are actually a blessing in disguise for the Liberals, if you adopt the long view. These rules are clearly hurting the Liberals in the immediate, but ultimately they will provide the path to renewal that needs to occur. The new system demands grassroots support, it relies on average Canadians, donating small amounts, to make a party fiscally viable. That reality translates to a need to reach out to the rank and file, build the party from the ground up. Within that, it then necessitates a better dialogue, or engagement, between the party appartus and its supporters.

We already see the seeds of a new dynamic, when you consider the Victory Fund, which involves direct interaction with participants and their leadership. Still in the embryo stage, it is easy to see how the need to attract donors will only be successful if people feel plugged in to the process. Under the old rules, the Liberals could rely on heavyweights to compete, and this reliance is partially responsible for the party appearing top heavy. That relationship has evaporated, which means in the end, there will be a transfer of power to the "person on the street" if the Liberals are to thrive.

When the dust settles, Kennedy's want may come about, not voluntarily, but because of circumstance, because party prosperity may depend on it. In a few years, I have a feeling we may look back on the new fundraising rules as the best thing that could have happened to the Liberal Party.

Wasting Taxpayers Money?

Two days ago, Harper is threatening to dissolve Parliament when it returns. Today, he seems intent on wasting taxpayers money with another by-election call, one that he didn't have to make:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has added a fourth byelection for September, as speculation grows that the Conservatives are gearing up for a general election later this year.

Voters in the Toronto riding of Don Valley West will elect a new MP on Sept. 22. The seat was previously held by Liberal John Godfrey, who officially announced his intention to resign on Aug. 1.

So, let me get this straight, parliament is dysfunctional, Harper is saber rattling, and then he plunks another by-election right after the fall session begins. Considering the high probability of a fall election, it begs the question- isn't this byelection a big waste of taxpayer dollars?

Strategically, from the Liberal perspective, I see nothing wrong with Harper's announcement. September 8th will be a good day for the party, and all this means is another victory two weeks later, providing further momentum. In addition, I'm sure there will be one or two questions about the timing of this latest announcement, which probably doesn't put Harper in a good light.

Just a further point, I heard a radio ad attacking the Liberals the other day, from a Toronto station. The ad was the usual garbage, but at the end it mentioned the coming by-election. I thought, what by-election? Now, it makes sense, Harper had already decided and they purposely ran ads prior to the official announcement, which is fair play I suppose. What is contradictory, this means as Harper was speaking of dissolving Parliament, he had already decided on this by-election date. That is a fact voters should keep in mind.

Walking The Halls, Tail In The Air

Today's Lawrence Martin column does an excellent job of exposing the Conservatives hypocrisy on "dysfunction". I've used the analogy before, but Harper complaining about parliament functioning properly is akin to the SKUNK bitching about the SMELL:

Cry us a river, Tories, but who wrote the book on chaos?


Oops. Maybe they forgot.

Last year, the governing Conservatives prepared a secret handbook on how to disrupt parliamentary committees and create chaos. No mere pamphlet, the book ran to 200 pages.

It instructed committee chairmen to select blatantly biased witnesses and tutor them in advance. It gave the chairmen pointers on how to obstruct parliamentary business, to storm out of meetings if necessary.

Team Harper never expected its opus to be made public. But the media got hold and the headlines poured forth - "Tories blasted for handbook on paralyzing Parliament" and the like.

The Prime Minister's Office had all the committee chairmen return their dirty-tricks texts. Given the Conservatives' red-handed embarrassment, it was expected that they might show a touch more temerity in the future.

Hypocrisy, of course, abounds in the nation's capital, all parties being guilty. But this week's hypocrisy moment may rank as one for the ages. The Conservatives wrote the handbook on obstructionism, they've followed it to the letter on many occasions, and they now come forward to proclaim that they are somehow the victims and that they may have no recourse but to go the polls.

Harper really comments on his own party's success, his plan achieved. Let's hope this point is made in an election campaign, because it really does reveal the most basic Conservative hypocrisy, undercutting everything they supposedly stood for in the last election.

UPDATE:

Something pungent in the air.

"It is false to pretend that I don't care about culture."

Josee Verner's decidedly weak response to criticism of the Conservatives cuts to culture. Verner says:

"What we intend to do ... is to look at how we can create a new program or new avenues that will be even better-performing and with a stronger impact for our culture abroad."

What a complete load. If you do "care", then you announce your "new program or new avenues" as a replacement. You don't slash, and then have the audacity to argue that we will now "look" into other initiatives. What serious person operates in this manner?

The fact of the matter, it's just a smokescreen, there is ZIP coming, by her own admission Verner says nothing is even on the drawing board. It's a simple CUT, end of story, period, fini, buh bye. Not only don't the Conservatives care, they are in fact HOSTILE.

BTW, I just upped my contribution to the Victory Fund, I find this sort of crap motivating. As an aside, I spoke with one of the solicitors and he said there has been a "considerable" uptick in contributions in recent weeks. Good, Canada can't afford these backward ideologues much longer.

Nice Fish

I guess Dion has decided to fish Mr. Harper. BTW, Dion won the fishing tournament, proving he can do well against slimy, cold blooded, razor toothed adversaries :)

No Time For Complacency

Don't get me wrong, everyone needs a vacation, but I'm getting the sense the last few weeks that the Liberals are generally taking a breather. This lull in the "sales" pitch comes at the same time that Harper is ramping up his attacks on the Liberals. Fortunately, the Conservatives are also dealing with considerable negative press, due to their self-inflicted wound routine during the Committee hearings. That development strikes me as more luck than sound strategy, overall circumstance demands a extraordinary push.

Reading these comments from an anonymous Conservative offical, you see a rare admission:

The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, said that the Conservatives believe Mr. Dion had a good July, with the launch of the Green Shift, but lately the balance has tilted

Dion did have a good July, easily his best patch since becoming leader. Don't take anything that follows as panic or doom and gloom, because the Liberals are fine as of today. My concern is more the trend, the Liberals just don't have the luxury to let up, it has to be push, push, push, all the time, everywhere. The opponent hasn't relinquished in the least, it's still daily offence. For all intent and purposes, the election has already begun, the Liberals simply can't afford to let Harper dominate the headlines without an effective counter. Idle media, with no real Liberal story to tell, allows for the Conservative attack machine to get maximum coverage. It is noteworthy, that Dion's high profile in the weeks prior tended to balance the hysteria. If Dion is on vacation, then Liberal strategists should be creative to keep their message in the news. Any "void" is risky, especially when you consider most Canadians haven't really developed a firm opinion either way.

The Green Shift is still malleable, the frame isn't completely established, which means its ultimate fate may come down to one simple reality, which side, the advocate or the detractor, works the hardest. This is no time to pat ourselves on the back for a pretty good release, this is the time to kick it into overdrive, every challenge met with a response. No dead air, complete overlap.

It's the middle of August, and I'm still waiting for anything Liberal in the province of Quebec. Fertile ground for The Green Shift, opportunity for Dion to get some traction. To date, no sense of any gameplan in this key province, if there is one, so under the radar to be irrelevant.

Again, the sky is not falling, in fact I see partly sunny skies. However, that current reality can change in short order, especially with rabid dogs everyone, primed to pounce.

Will Conservative Plan "Screw" Canadians?

Oh, here we go again, this time John Baird with the Green Shift means Canadians get "screwed" rhetoric. Back in the playground, nothing substantive, appealing to the gutter, Baird follows the Conservative mantra. Politically speaking, it's all good, because there is no evidence to suggest the bombastic language works, in fact we've seen criticism when the Conservatives respond like juveniles. All that aside, in reading this piece on Baird's grave warnings to Nova Scotians, I was struck by this one sentence, in reference to the Conservative plan:

The Conservative document Turning the Corner says there would be higher prices for Canadians.

"Canadians can therefore expect to bear costs under the regulatory framework that are not trivial," it says.

People will remember, that when the Conservatives released their "plan", it was met with much criticism. In an effort to project credibility, people like Baird were running around telling reporters that the Conservative plan would come with a "cost" to Canadians. In fact, Baird emphasized the "costs", because that worked politically, the measure of effectiveness seemed to be how hard the plan bites.

The above quote is where the Conservative argument falls apart like a house of cards. If Canadians can expect an impact for the Conservative plan, which is "not trivial", then the question becomes- what are the Conservatives doing to offset the "cost"? If Nova Scotians are most reliant on carbon producing sources of energy, does it not make sense, that under the Conservative plan, they would be "screwed"? The Conservative plan will increase the cost of energy, by their own admission, much like The Green Shift.

Here's the kicker. Unlike The Green Shift, the Conservative plan comes with a "cost", but does nothing on the "relief" side. So, people in Nova Scotia get higher "costs", "screwed", and that's it, you simply pay more. Let's say for arguments sake that the Conservative plan "costs" much less than the Liberal plan, which is probably true, because behind all of this bluster, their plan has more holes than Glen Abbey. Even under that scenario, when you factor in the Liberal offsets on the tax side, you are probably worse off under the Conservative plan. Your "screwed" factor is higher.

Bringing it down to soundbites, the Conservative want to apply a "not trivial" cost increase on voters, period. The Liberals want to raise prices, but also offer substantial reduction on the income tax side, as well as credits, to offset any impact. Now, you tell me, who actually gets "screwed"? The Conservatives nonsensical arguments, the entire premise is counter-intuitive. I think they've boxed themselves into a irrational corner, it's now the job of the Liberals to expose it for all to see.

The Low Road To Nowhere

Keep up the negative ads, keep up the smears, the fear mongering, the outlandish rhetoric, in case you haven't figured it out yet, Canadians don't much care for your tactics. First the numbers:

Liberal support was up slightly to 33 per cent, statistically tied with the Tories at 32 per cent and followed by the NDP at 15 per cent and the Greens at 13 per cent.

Liberals are actually up 2% nationally since the last Decima offering(beginning of July), but the good news comes in the regionals. I've said this before, when certain polls have shown a statistical tie, that the Conservative regional support is uneven, which means a tie is really a Liberal lead electorally. This pollster concurs:

But Walker said it's the regional numbers that signal potential trouble for the Tories.

When is the last time, we have seen the Liberals out front in Quebec (margin of error aside):

In Quebec, the Liberals appeared to be benefiting most from a collapse in support for the Bloc Quebecois. Liberals were at 30 per cent, virtually tied with the Bloc at 29 per cent, followed by the Tories at 24 per cent, the Greens at eight per cent and the NDP at six per cent.

Liberals up 4% in Quebec, although the Conservative numbers have improved as well. Part of the Bloc vote collapse may have to due with largely being ignored during this Green Shift debate. I know some will argue that the Quebec only polls are more indicative, and that may be true, but you have to like the trends for the Liberals in Quebec.

Ontario is largely unchanged from the last poll, except for the NDP totals, with this pollster mirroring other findings that show real erosion:

In Ontario, the Liberals enjoyed a healthy lead with 40 per cent, compared to the Tories with 31 per cent and the NDP and Greens with 14 per cent each.

What I find most encouraging, absolutely no sense whatsoever that the Conservatives constant attacks have done any damage to the Liberals. Couple this fact with an uptick in Dion's personal numbers, and it's a fairly positive picture.

British Columbia (high MOE):

In British Columbia, a three-week average of weekly telephone polling results suggests the Tories were ahead at 32 per cent, with the Liberals and NDP tied at 26 per cent and the Greens at 15 per cent.

No real movement since the last Decima poll, nor in Atlantic Canada for that matter.

I've been of the opinion, that the first few weeks would be the biggest challenge for the Liberals tax shift proposal. It's a simple idea, but the details are complicated, not easily explained in soundbite form. The Green Shift is also sensitive to the most superficial of attacks, because it has to do with taxes, easy fodder for opponents. In the grand scheme, if the Liberals could get the plan out without initial rejection, then time would allow for the idea to penetrate, allow a better understanding. This poll is another indication that the Liberals have weathered the initial storm, the oily ads, the virgins in yellow shirts, the NDP's attacks, none of it seems to have hurt the Liberals, if anything encouragement. Factor in the usual opposition lull during the summer, and it's a decent picture heading into the fall.

Does It Even Matter?

It's Olympic time, so cue the standard hand wringing about whether Canada is doing enough to be competitive on the world stage. Our national pride at stake, where's the medals, what are we doing wrong?

First off, they're called GAMES for a reason. In the grand scheme of things, whether or not somebody wins a medal, is of little relevance to the state of world affairs. I don't think Canada's stature in the international community in anyway hinges on our medal total. If anything, Canada's reputation as a civil, nice society is somewhat enhanced by not performing well, the love able losers I suppose. Let other countries take four year old girls out of their homes to put them in programs (see Chinese gymnastics team), so they can secure gold, in some warped pursuit of glory.

I just don't care. I actually enjoy hearing about how certain Canadian athletes made it to Beijing, it's the journey, not the result. So, someone places 8th or misses the final, I think our mediocrity makes us appreciate the experience, rather than a fixation on winning at all costs. I'm not interested in hyper-nationalism, how someone performs at a game as a reflection of societal prowess.

Our athletes should have funding available to pursue their Olympic aspirations. Apart from that, I don't favor pouring obscene amounts of money into programs, as other countries do, tax dollars are better spent on things that actually matter. So, with that in mind a poll:

Beating Baird

Well, it looks like John Baird is set to face some stiff competition in the next election. Baird won the riding by 9% in 2006, prior to that the Liberals had held it for the past three elections. A former Liberal cabinet minister, is rising to the challenge of turfing the blowhard:

Former Liberal defence minister David Pratt, who was a rising star in the government of Paul Martin, will likely run against Conservative Environment Minister John Baird in the next federal election, he says.

Mr. Pratt, a veteran Nepean politician, said he is "almost 100-per-cent certain" that he will go for the Liberal nomination in Ottawa West-Nepean.

"I'm very, very interested and very motivated," said Mr. Pratt. "I almost have to do it. The party has to field a strong candidate against Mr. Baird."

Mr. Pratt told the Citizen Tuesday that he has talked to both Liberal party and riding officials and become convinced that the riding can be won. He grew up in the Crystal Beach neighbourhood of the riding and notes that the riding historically has swung between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

He said he feels compelled to run to defend the role and finances of the federal government, to speak out against the "hyper-partisanship" of the Conservatives and defend the role of Ottawa as the nation's capital.

I'm glad to see the Liberals are making a push in this riding, while it will be a challenge, having a candidate of this stature presents a conceivable win. Anyone who is disgusted at the level of discourse in our Parliament should welcome any development that threatens to unseat the likes of John Baird.

I wonder if The Green Shift was the primary motivator that enticed Pratt to run ;)

Nothing To Hide, Then Why Hide?

If, as you claim, your actions are perfectly legal, much ado about nothing, then you don't conspire to derail a process, which according to your arguments, will actually vindicate your point of view. Conservatives should relish the opportunity to have their party agents explain how they did nothing illegal, expose the lynch mob for what they are, partisan opportunists. So far, the only witnesses to show up to the Committee, consist of people who have had a falling out with the Conservative Party, in one way or another, not ONE "scheduled" appearance by any person still aligned with the party.

Four more no shows today, a pattern which is irrefutable, apart from "take leave of our senses" hyper-partisans. Why hide, if you have nothing to hide?:

The Conservative Party is being accused of obstructing a Commons committee investigating elections financing after three potential witnesses said they were told by the party not to show up.

The Tories categorically denied the allegation after four more summoned party agents failed to appear this morning, raising further concerns by ethics committee chair Paul Szabo that there is a pattern.

“It appears to be consistent with the (previous) indication that proposed witnesses had given us” that the party had told them not to co-operate, Szabao told reporters after adjourning the morning’s session.

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) said there is an onus on the ethics committee to investigate reports that some witnesses are being urged not to testify, even though they have received summons to appear.

“It is an obstruction of justice to advise somebody to not to not attend a parliamentary committee when they are summoned, just as it would be wrong for a lawyer to advise their client to ignore some court date,” Martin said.

Conservative MP Gary Goodyear (Cambridge) absolutely denied that anyone from the party has instructed witnesses not to show.

"That is absolutely false,” Goodyear said.

False? More like blatantly obvious.

The Conservatives must have concluded that things would go very badly for their party agents, deciding to take the hit of obstruction, over the spectacle of illegalities. Neither option works, although it seems the Conservatives are just drawing more attention to a mid-summer Committee, than would otherwise be there under normal circumstances.

I'm not sure I understand the wisdom of having every news outlet plastering this juicy angle onto their sites, not sure how that helps the Conservatives claims of unfair treatment, we did nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, between today and yesterday's developments, it seems the Conservatives are fueling the perception that something is amiss with their past practices, doing more damage than any witness could possibly do. Pulling stunts, obstruction, added to the already uncomfortable dynamic of attacking democratic institutions, and the Conservatives are clearly losing the battle of perceptions. Contrast this behavior with Harper's boastful "confidence in our legal position" bravado, and it suggests reason for suspicion. If you are "solid", then you don't need to hide, obstruct and confuse, you just throw out the facts and let reasonable minds see your credible position. Conservatives are dreaming, if they think their case is bolstered with these tactics, if anything they are only reinforcing an unflattering perception with the public. What we are seeing is within the realm of the guilty, it shows no relationship to the unjustly accused.

A Breath Of Fresh Air

A thoughtful perspective, in an Edmonton paper no less, that actually looks at The Green Shift with an open mind:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift plan for the environment has stirred up much controversy in recent months, not the least of which are the West's concerns about the plan's impact on the region's natural resources.

Some fear a repeat of the dark days of the national energy program, and others are raising the spectre of yet another national unity crisis...

Lougheed, the grandfather of Alberta conservatism, the man who brought the Conservatives to power in the first place, has stressed the need for an "olive branch" to the rest of Canada -- if the federal Conservatives aren't going to do anything about pollution, then doesn't it make more sense to try and cooperate with Dion and the Liberals if they actually are trying to find a solution, and make it stronger and better with our own input, rather than simply refusing to speak to him because of his party affiliation?...

Prominent Liberals and Conservatives like Dion and Lougheed are discussing many of the same issues -- if anything, the East and West probably have more common ground than they realize.

From there, a competent federal government can act as mediator between the provinces, developing a pan-Canadian environmental strategy that combines policies that apply to Canada as a whole in with variations that take provincial differences into account.

Whether or not the Green Shift is the solution to Canada's environmental woes, at least it's a start.

What I find refreshing, a Canadian perspective, as opposed to the silly "us vs them" nonsense which tends to derail any rational discussion. Pointing a finger at Ontario, but also recognizing some simple realities, a sense that we are in this together, our common interests. A discussion without bad guys, injecting alterior motives that don't exist, this entire debate is really a struggle between the small and narrow, and those that wish to move forward in good faith. Let's hope viewpoints like the above can be heard above the cynical noise. "At least it's a start".

Blunder

Since we constantly hear chess analogies, in reference to the Conservatives strategic prowess, today's orchestrated attempt to derail the "in and out" hearings could best be characterized as a BLUNDER. In a move that reeks of arrogance, not to mention a political tin ear, it's hard to see the upside in having Doug Finley make a surprise appearance. Are the Conservatives trying to draw more attention to a forum, that for them, is best left to an incestous discussion amongst the political class? What were you thinking?:

Parliamentary hearings into the Conservative in-and-out campaign financing scheme got off to a raucous start Monday, with the Tories' campaign manager being ejected after refusing to leave voluntarily.

Doug Finley was escorted from the Commons ethics committee room by security guards after 20 minutes of wrangling between Tory MPs and Liberal committee chairman Paul Szabo.

Mr. Finley surprised committee members by showing up three days before he was scheduled to appear – in what seemed to be an orchestrated attempt to create a stir.

I fail to see the wisdom in creating a "stir" from the Conservatives perspective. All Findlay achieved was to put more focus on the proceedings, ensure the committee was frontpage news in every publication. Trying to disrupt speaks to a sense of guilt, because if, as the Conservatives argue, "everybody does it", nothing illegal, you aren't reduced to pulling pranks to draw attention from the substance. There's nothing to see, so why create a spectacle?

Speaking of substance:

In a hearing about Conservative election spending, an unsuccessful candidate testified Monday that he agreed in advance not to spend $37,000 the party sent to his campaign in 2006 and quickly took back.

Gary Caldwell, who ran for the Tories in the Quebec riding of Compton-Stanstead, said he later redrafted his election spending report to withdraw a claim for a 60 per cent federal rebate on that amount.

"I realize that the central party, any party, can give money to the local riding association, but when we examined this further I became convinced that it was only a legitimate local expense if we in fact spent it," he told the Commons ethics committee. " In fact, that was not the case."

Caldwell said he left the Tories "after what happened and my concern that the Conservative Party was no longer interested in rehabilitating parliamentary institutions." He plans to run next as a Green Party candidate.

Who Needs Computer Models?

One of the more annoying points deniers try to make, is this idea that most of the science of global warming is based on computer models. It seems a convenient way to sideswipe the evidence, "I'm not putting any stock in some computer program". In an indirect way, the criticism has found some validity, the trouble is most of the "real world" evidence tends to find the computer models understate the rapidity of change, things are WORSE than the models predicted. That aside, this angle is mostly a diversion, because who needs models when you have reality:

Arctic meltdown could set new record

It's now a "neck-and-neck race between 2007 and this year over the issue of ice loss," Mark Serreze, a senior climate researcher at the Colorado-based NSIDC, told the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper on Sunday. "We thought Arctic ice cover might recover after last year's unprecedented melting - and indeed the picture didn't look too bad last month."

But recent storms in the Beaufort region "triggered steep ice losses," he said, "and it now looks as if it will be a very close call indeed whether 2007 or 2008 is the worst year on record for ice cover over the Arctic."

The Canadian government's chief observers of Arctic ice conditions are expressing amazement at the state of the Beaufort Sea.

"We've never seen any kind of opening like this in history," CIS senior ice forecaster Luc Desjardins said of the Beaufort's exceptional loss of ice this summer. "It is not only record-setting, it's unprecedented. It doesn't resemble anything that we've observed before."

The persistent retreat of polar sea ice in recent years has convinced some researchers that the region is fast approaching a "tipping point" that could see nearly the entire Arctic ice-free during the summer months as early as 2013.

Questioning Gutter Politics

Another Conservative blogger is questioning the Conservatives "all negative, all the time" approach, an opinion we've heard before recently. Let's hope the Conservative Party doesn't heed some good advice, because for the all the bluster about "negative ads work", they have accomplished squat, in terms of expanding the Conservatives support:

Which is why we should question the wisdom of making attacks on the Liberals the main focus of Conservative Party advertising and communications, instead of trying to sell our own agenda and our own record as a party and a government. The kinds of images and ads that are getting used right now may actually be part of the reason why the poll numbers aren't getting any better; because they make the government look and sound like an opposition party, and give people plenty of reasons to dislike Dion without giving them in any reasons to like the CPC.

This is not to say that we should completely abandon negative or contrast advertising. Rather, we should realize that with the current crop of attack ads we have reached the point of diminishing returns, and turn instead to a more positive approach. After two years of getting e-mails asking me to contribute to keep one negative ad or another on the air, will no longer do so. I would be happy, however, to chip in $25 or $50 to help air some ads talking about what a great job the P.M. and the government are doing for Canadians.

To be fair, I do believe the "not a leader" attack ads were quite successful, defining Dion before he had an opportunity to define himself. The perceived success of that campaign, may have created a false thesis within the Conservative brain trust, a singular approach which has failed to see that each successive attack has largely failed. Attack ads work, but it is also true that they don't work for eternity, they lose their effectiveness when the attacker looks predictable, when the attacker begins to say more about themselves than the target. In other words, there is a fundamental imbalance in the Conservative approach, it's fine to slam your opponent, but it doesn't resonate forever, when you offer nothing to contrast.

What the Conservative Party hasn't realized, and quick frankly I hope they don't, they have so saturated our discourse with negativity, that it has created a perception of this government as mean-spirited, aggressive, encompassing all the characteristics of a bully. The "still in opposition" mentality of this government is one of the main reasons the Conservatives haven't capitalized in a very favorable political environment. Canadians now expect negativity, any previous effectiveness is at best countered by reaffirming the notion that they prefer the gutter. Maybe Dion takes a hit, but that works in concert with the perception that this gang is nasty to the core, at best a draw, at worst you actually undermine your own brand. Don't believe me, the polls consistently show that the Conservatives are actually turning off key demographics, and one of the core reasons revolves around the "mean" factor. It's entirely self-evident, and yet it continues, which might speak to true nature, rather than tactical preferences.

This government is largely made up of reactionaries. More about what they dislike, tearing down, disassembling, rather than any thoughts of vision or creating. It views our institutions with negativity, it begins with hostility, it starts with "we hate Liberals" and proceeds from this inspiration. With that in mind, the ads make sense, entirely consistent with the core motivations- they just can't help themselves. The new Conservative Party is simply a negative first entity, and the ads, just an extension of an entire philosophy.

I think it speaks volumes, when the devoted grassroots begins to question the approach. If partisans aren't impressed, it seems almost ridiculous to believe that ordinary citizens, with no vested interest, are moved.

Timing

Everyone has noticed, that this government has a habit of releasing unflattering reports, or items they wish to bury, on Fridays. It's pretty simple really, avoid much scrutiny on a slow news day, heading into the distraction of a weekend. Last Friday, three separate releases, the timing obvious, the intent clear. It's a consistent strategy, that even Conservative partisans can't credibly deny.

With that philosophy in mind, what then are we to make of John Baird's department releasing part of their GHG emissions reduction strategy on a Friday? I mean, this is a key component of the Conservatives emissions plan, one Baird has been promising for months, one that apparently leads the world, tougher than nails, proof positive that all the criticism directed at the government is unwarranted. Where's the fanfare, where's the press conference, why release it when nobody will really notice? Seems odd, because really the government should want maximum coverage to demonstrate to Canadians that their approach is the real deal. Instead, quietly released, hardly any press, almost ignored.

Nothing is by accident with this government, so we can take the timing as a clear indicator. If this is a "big step forward" as Baird offered, why the "walking on tippy toes" release? Could it be because the plan is weak? Or, could it also be because the government would have to admit a harsh fact:

Baird conceded Friday that some forms of energy would be more expensive under his government's approach.

The last thing Conservatives want to talk about is a plan that will mean higher energy costs. What about the seniors, the farmers, the truckers, the people who buy groceries, fisherman? Every Conservative in the country is running around saying we don't need any initiative that will add cost to already high prices, how then could they then have to admit their plan does just that? A combination of a weak plan, full of holes, but coupled with the "selling" spectacle of admitting a cost, to show credibility, all congeal to a Friday news dump.

Did NDP Candidate Quit Because He Feared "Green Shift"?

It all seems innocent enough, but then you start connecting the dots, and the real story crystallizes. On June 19th, Stephen Dion introduced the Liberals Green Shift plan. Then a mere FOUR days later, we hear of this story:

The Vancouver Centre NDP riding association is looking for a new candidate after the resignation of Randall Garrison as its candidate this week.

Garrison is citing personal reasons as a factor in his decision not to contest the riding currently held by Liberal MP Hedy Fry. Fry has held the seat for 15 years.

Garrison told Xtra West he was withdrawing for both personal and professional reasons.

Oh, the old "personal and professional" reasons excuse. Where have I had that one before? The timing is just too cute isn't it? Obviously, Mr. Garrison was so intimidated by the newly released Liberal Green Shift that he simply got "cold feet", afraid to campaign against this compelling initiative. I mean, Garrison was nominated months prior, then all of sudden The Green Shift comes out, and poof, I'm out outta here. You do the math.

Looky Here, A Journalist Emerges

As local papers parrot Conservative propaganda, and supposedly reputable journalists like Don Martin run with nothing, it's nice to see someone asking some basic questions, before swallowing unsubstantiated spin:

Seriously, is there a scintilla of actual evidence – circumstantial or otherwise - that now infamously former Liberal candidate Robert Morrissey bolted because of the Green Shift?

I mean, I’m not saying he didn’t – heck, anything is possible. But based on the coverage so far, it seems as though that particular claim originated with Conservative Party spokesbird (and erstwhile part-time House of Commons salary-drawer) Ryan Sparrow, who isn’t exactly what I’d call objective - and, I’m betting, is downright shocked by how easy it has been to push this story to the local PEI press despite a noticeable lack of independent corroboration.

Independent corrobation, what a novel concept. Nevermind, the fact the Liberals won this riding by a staggering 23% in the last election, considered one of the safest in Atlantic Canada, no, we are supposed to believe as Don Martin puts it, this is about "cold feet". Is there an objective observer anywhere that would view this riding as "swing", one that is really in danger of moving to the Conservatives column? Is there one person who actually lives in P.E.I that has offered an opinion? Oh yes, just the sitting MP for the riding, who reacted with anger at the suggestion.

Everyone loves a good, juicy narrative, but it would be nice to interject some non into the rampant fiction that is swirling around. To date, I fail to see why anybody should be in "damage control", unless of course our political discourse takes its cues from a Conservative hack.

Nice Words

Still waiting...

The Passive Media

Let me get this straight, a P.E.I Liberal candidate reconsiders his run in the next election, and the person who knows the inner workings of his decision is a uber partisan Conservative hack in Ottawa. How that translates to a credible news piece escapes me:

Morrissey backed out due to Green Shift, Tories charge

Sparrow said from Ottawa.

“Morrissey is clearly feeling the heat on the carbon tax and doesn’t want to campaign on raising the price of gas, home heating fuel and groceries.’’

But Morrissey said his decision had more to do with the uncertainty over the timing of the next election than Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s green shift plan.

Ryan Sparrow can spin all he wants, that's his job, but I expect more from the media than simply acting as conduit for unsubstantiated propaganda. Was there anything that Morrissey said that would support such a charge? Any Liberal sources close to the campaign that heard of unhappiness over the Green Shift? Anything at all, apart from the nonsense of a man a time zone away? That opinion deserves to be in the title of your piece?

It would appear that complete fabrication is newsworthy, people can just throw out wild theories, and the reporter simply parrotsthe charge, no verification, no journalistic "eye", nope, thanks Ryan Sparrow, we'll be sure to pass this on to our readers.

Tilt

And, the "what could we possibly be thinking" award goes to...PETA.

What Time Is Recess At Conservative.ca?

The latest edition of fearmongering and juvenile reasoning has been posted on that eyesore the Conservatives call a website. Look out Atlantic Canada, it's your turn to be bombarded by the asinine, pummeled by the absurd. I actually laughed:

The list of people who lose under the Dion Carbon Tax continues to grow:

Truckers, farmers, fishermen, seniors on fixed incomes, families who use natural gas, families who use home heating oil, commuters, taxi drivers, people who shop for groceries, electricity users, business travelers, people who fly in airplanes, manufacturing workers, resource workers, people who live in rural Canada, people who live in the suburbs, and families with children could all expect to pay more under the Dion Carbon Tax.

I didn't realize "people who shop for groceries" were a subset of our society? Doesn't this imply some amongst us don't eat? Who writes this crap? The list grows, what next, "people who walk erect", "ethnic groups in the 905", "soft nationalists in Bloc held ridings", "children who take baths".

This is your contribution to the debate Conservatives, this is your braintrust, this is your party. The sense of pride.

While Stragglers Debate...

the evidence mounts:

A new seven-year study of the Arctic's shrinking sea ice - which is headed for another above-average melt this summer - concludes that the polar cap is not only losing vast swathes of surface area but also experiencing a "drastic thinning" likely to reinforce the overall retreat.

The study, headed by University of Alberta ice expert Christian Haas, found reductions of ice thickness in the central Arctic Ocean of up 50 per cent between 2001 and 2007, as well as widespread replacement of heavier, older ice near the North Pole with weaker first-year ice.

"The regime shift to younger and thinner ice could soon result in an ice-free North Pole during summer," says the study, to be published in the fall by the U.S. journal Geophysical Research Letters but obtained this week by Canwest News Service.

"Reduced ice thickness in Arctic Transpolar Drift favours rapid ice retreat" - was co-authored by a six-member team of researchers from Europe and North America and completed while Haas was with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany.

Travelling over several seasons aboard the German icebreaker RV Polarstern, the team's key findings were produced by aerial surveys in which electromagnetic instruments carried by helicopter measured ice thickness at scores of sample sites throughout the central polar region between Canada and Russia.

The Transpolar Drift describes the general flow of Arctic Ocean ice from eastern Siberia past the North Pole toward Greenland, a conveyor belt of ice also fed by the clockwise-flowing Beaufort Gyre north of Alaska and the Yukon.

"Clearly, the thinner ice cover favours a stronger areal retreat of the ice during summer," the researchers conclude, noting that their study "points to the possibility of further rapid reductions once that vast uniform region has thinned further below certain thresholds."

Im sure it's all just due to sun spots, cyclical variation or Al Gore will a big blowtorch. The saddest part, they actually think they're the clever ones.

More About The Messenger

Wow, what a shocker, the Conservatives are running another round of negative attack ads, this time in Atlantic Canada. Nevermind, that Peter MacKay seems to have a problem with the truth, I think the real story here is a cementing theme, which doesn't help the Conservatives in the least.

Liberal MP Robert Thibault made this comment, in reaction to this latest installment of "Liberals bad", which is actually telling:

"You expect that type of thing from them," West Nova MP Robert Thibault, a Liberal, said in a phone interview Monday.

"When you don’t have any ideas yourself, you attack the other people with the ideas."

If memory serves, these attack ads on The Green Shift, which have ran around the country at various times, represents the 5th or 6th seperate occasion, wherein the Conservatives have launched a negative campaign since Dion took the helm. For those keeping score at home, by my calculations the amount of positive ads, speaking to a Conservative vision and/or accomplishments, currently stands at ZERO. That's right, for all of Harper's pontifications about the litany of "results", the unparalled union of our federation, the "leading the world" nonsense, not ONE positive ad, nothing, nada, zilch. Given the Conservatives monetary advantages, the omission is entirely curious, but really a testament to what this government is all about.

Where are the ads, outlining Mr. Baird's "tough" plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? The rhetoric says the Conservatives have a better plan, how about a compare and contrast ad, how about something to show Canadians that you are credible? Nope, can't have that, instead we are subjected to simple fear mongering and mean spirited ads. Surely, all those Conservative apologists must wonder why their party braintrust doesn't extoll the virtues of their tremendous contribution to this debate? Crickets.

Here's the good news, and a lesson which the Conservatives can't seem to grasp. The constant negativity, the perpetual attacks, have turned off many voters. The pollsters have consistently shown that the Conservatives are losing key demograpics, people they desperately need, if they are to expand their support. The percentage of women, across all age groups, which view the Conservatives as too partisan, mean and nasty, has gone up over the last year. Thinking strategically, it is almost astounding that the supposed chess masters continue along the same path, in essence reinforcing their own negative perceptions with the public. How this approach translates to expanding support escapes me, if anything the evidence suggest people want something else.

Where are the "vision" ads, where are the "good government" ads, why can't this government seem to offer anything but attacks? Maybe, it's because the reality of this government, they don't really have anything to offer anybody, apart from vote driven policies, the entire new Conservative Party predicated on what they dislike, what they "hate", rather than what they stand for. It is really an indication of a party that really stands for nothing, it's mainly nothing more than a reactionary entity. In the end, negativity is all they have, Harper more suited for leader of the opposition, than leader of men. Run the ads, and reinforce your own shortcomings, it really does says more about the messenger than anything else.

Dion's Numbers Improve

I was given the pdf for the latest Angus Reid online poll. The horserace numbers remain largely the same from the last offering, with the Conservatives at 35%(up 2), Liberals 30%(same), NDP 17%(down 2), Greens 8%(up 1). The regionals show trouble for the NDP in Ontario and the Conservatives down in Quebec. It is the leadership numbers that I find intriguing, and they contain a silver lining for Dion.

First the internals. Ontario:

Liberals 40%(up 5%)
Conservatives 39%(up 6%)
NDP 12%(down 8%)
Greens 8%(down 1%)

That is a disasterous number for the NDP, given the small margin of error, hard to spin that as anything but a significant fall. I wonder if the NDP is getting lost in the Green Shift debate and/or economic uncertainty rising as an issue, never an NDP strong suit. Whatever the reason, that's a huge drop and not easily dismissed. As far as the Liberals and Conservatives, Angus tends to show a closer race than say NANOS, Decima or Strategic Counsel, so I still tend to think the Liberals have a decent lead, outside of MOE.

Quebec:

Bloc 35% (down 2%)
Conservatives 21% (down 4%)
Liberals 20% (down 1%)
NDP 15% (up 1%)
Greens 9% (up 6%)

Conservatives still can't seem to get much traction, every time they rise, they fall back. Interestingly, this poll was taken during the supposed "show of force" Conservative love fest in Quebec.

Now, for what I find to be the most relevant part of this poll, the leadership numbers. I don't want to overstate things, Dion still has a LONG way to go, Harper clearly enjoys the advantage, but the trends are certainly better. Harper's disapproval number has climbed further, to 46% and his "momentum score", which gauges improving and lowering opinions rose to -21(-19 in June). For Dion his approval rating remains unchanged (up 1%), but his momentum score is -19 (-26 in June). Here is where the difference for Dion manifests itself:

Has a vision for Canada

Harper 43% (down 1%)
Dion 36% (up 7%)

Understands complex issues:

Harper 41%(up 1%)
Dion 26% (up 5%)

Is honest and trustworthy:

Harper 32% (unchanged)
Dion 32% (up 7%)

Generally agrees with you on issues you care about:

Harper 27% (down 2%)
Dion 23% (up 6%)

Cares about the environment:

Harper 24% (down 4%)
Dion 49% (up 6%)

Can manage the economy effectively:

Harper 40% (down 4%)
Dion 14% (up 4%)

A couple of other measures, with no real change. Of note, Dion is up 4% on PM preference, "neither" still beating both men. Again, Conservatives will remind us who is ahead overall, in some cases by a good margin, but no one can deny that Dion's numbers have improved, his personal stature on the rise. UP on almost every measure, some by a noticeable margin, it's a good sign.

I've always argued that the Green Shift's greatest achievement politically will be if it gets Dion's popularity off the mat, lowers the gap between he and Harper. While it isn't champagne time by any stretch, I think it safe to say that this poll shows a positive effect for Dion, and in the final analysis may prove key in an election. The incumbent always enjoys the advantage, but Dion clearly has to close the personal gap to have any chance.

The Liberals Will Fish

Will they or won't they? Another column today in The Hill Times, which argues Dion has been to told to "cool it" when it comes to fall election talk. The article then asserts what I think is a ridiculous theory, that the Liberals were spooked by last week's Conservative lovefest in Quebec. Yes, a co-ordinated partisan retreat has led some to get cold feet, as though Liberals will run because Harper dared them, in front of an orchestrated champaign style rally. Please.

IMHO, I take a fall election as a given now. I don't really care what Dion says the rest of the summer, because ultimately I don't see the benefit in telegraphing intentions. What some define as "hedging", I see as shrewd, pulling back creates an air of uncertainty, even if the intent remains the same. Politically, I don't see any reason to continual beat the election drum, some comments were made, now its best just to "sell" and wait until Parliament returns.

If you read between the lines here, it's hard to see how the Liberals avoid a fall election. Any fair observer would have to agree, that whatever their opinion of The Green Shift, Dion has succeeded in reshaping his image somewhat. The spectre of Liberals sitting on their hands throughout the last session of Parliament has faded, the image of Dion as "weak" obviously tempered, replaced by a bold policy that has finally given Dion his voice. Again, you can argue the wisdom in the policy, but you have to acknowledge some positive developments for Dion, in terms of perceptions.

Fast forward to the fall, and Harper introduces confidence motions, daring the Liberals to fight an election. How any strategist could conclude the Liberals can take a pass, again cowering in the face of a challenge, is beyond me. That is a strategy to undo any of the rehabiliation of Dion, in fact this summer would translate into a complete waste of time. I'm of the mind that the Liberals have now passed the point of no return, this is the policy, these are the frames, for better or worse, it's now or never. Backing away now amounts to electoral suicide, Dion will be hammered, more rounds of "discontent" as an idle media reasserts an old theme, hard to find any positives for the Liberals, apart from some faint hope that the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot.

So, as the media debates whether Dion is backing down, will he or won't he, I'm just operating on the assumption that the election is coming this fall. I don't see any other option at this point, the time has come, those arguing further delay seem detached from reality. Dion should "cool it", but in the end, don't read anything in to what amounts to political necessity.

"Change"="Same Old, Same Old"

I like Obama. What I don't care for, is the way his disciples elevate Obama to a pedestal, which frankly doesn't have any merit. It's not cynicism, but realism, and the more we see of Obama, the more it becomes crystal clear that "change" is largely a mirage in any substantive way.

I couldn't help but be amused as some supporters reacted with surprise, when Obama began the traditional move from left to center once the primary season was over. It happens ever time, everyone knows it, and yet, for some reason Obama was supposedly unique. To say Obama is a skilled politican is almost a negative characterization, because it challenges the notion that he operates differently than standard practice. If you listen to the speeches, and take the rhetoric to heart, then you are forced to confront a simple conflict. Obama does put his finger in the air to see which way the wind blows, his principles do waver, and yes, he is really ordinary, in many respects.

Anyways, the point, is illustrated here in spades, political speak of the highest order, oozing of pander and flip flop, pure unadulterated Washington speak:

Barack Obama Friday dropped his opposition to offshore oil drilling, saying he could go along with the idea if it was part of a broader energy package.

Obama made his comments in St. Petersburg during an interview with the Palm Beach Post. "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," he said.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," the paper quoted Obama as saying.

I think it better to look at Obama without the rose colored glasses, it will only make his descent to the realm of mere mortals easier to digest. And, in the end, it's okay, because Obama was never worthy of the lofty adjectives in the first place, misplaced hype and personal aspirations aside.

It's A Simple Question Really

One of the most amazing aspects of this entire climate change policy debate, the fact that the Conservatives can't seem to find ANY independent, unbiased, backing of their plan. The Liberals can cite expert opinion, so too the Greens and NDP. That fact speaks to a certain credibility, it isn't just political nuance, the various initiatives part of a real debate, amongst those who are analyzing honestly.

Today, another opinion weighs in, once again questioning the validity of the Conservatives policy. This time, National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, which basically says the Conservatives numbers just don't add up to much:

The Harper government might be overestimating how much its climate-change plan will lower greenhouse gases, says a federal advisory panel.
Flaws in government calculations could skew projections around the Tories' green policies, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy says in a report to be released Saturday.

"Some problems persist with how individual policy measures are calculated and with their projected emission reductions," the report says.

"Individual policy measures continue to be presented without these sources of overestimation adequately being taken into account."

However, a spokeswoman for Environment Minister John Baird said the government is confident in its estimates.

The last part is the relevant issue here. The Minister is "confident in his estimates". Well, that's nice, but it begs a simple question- Mr. Baird, could you please direct me to one expert in Canada, one group, one international group for that matter, that can confirm you plan will do what you argue? I mean, this is too the point of nonsensical, the Conservatives have nothing apart from their own spin to support their policy, and yet, they are continually allowed to just spew out figures and brag about effectiveness, in a world that doesn't seem to find any connection to reality.

Rather than journalists allowing Baird equal time, as they continually do on the issue, their role should be to challenge the assertions. Our media isn't a passive observer, that just allows everyone a forum in the name of misguided fairness, it is supposed to verify the veracity of the claims. If the Conservative plan is as tough as they argue, then surely its proponents can point to outside support? If not, as the case may be, then it is incumbent on the media to highlight this fact.

In any policy debate, it is generally easy to find some sympathetic voices, the array of opinion from various "expert" corners, some level of support, somewhere, almost a given. The most striking thing about this supposed "debate", that will be brought to the Canadian people, the Conservatives are naked, all they have is their own spin, really nothing but bluster. Moving forward, the media fails by treating this plan with respect and simply quote the various talking points, is so then they are just conduits for propaganda. Next time, when Baird appears to defend his plan, or attack others, ask him the simple question, and when he turns red and side swipes the issue, Canadians will have their answer. The Conservative plan is an objective FRAUD, and should be treated as such. That's not my opinion, that's EVERYONE'S opinion, partisans or stakeholders aside.

Tough Guy Rhetoric Shows No Relationship To Reality

While Harper did his usual tough guy routine, taunting and flexing for the faithful, full of bravado about forcing an election, another finding, from a friendly source, that paints a different picture. These numbers would actually mean a more likely Liberal minority:

A new poll shows the Conservatives just slightly ahead of the Liberals, but behind their Grit rivals in Ontario and Quebec, two provinces where the Conservatives must make gains if they hope to one day form a majority government.

The Ipsos Reid survey finds that 34 per cent of Canadians support Harper's Conservatives, an improvement of one percentage point from the last Ipsos Reid poll six weeks ago, while Dion's Liberals are sitting at 30 per cent, a drop of two percentage points.

In the latest poll, the NDP was the preferred choice of 14 per cent of voters, an improvement of one point since the last poll, while the Green Party has the support of about 11 per cent of Canadians, up two points.

Ontario:

In Ontario, 37 per cent of voters would pick a Liberal candidate while 33 per cent would choose a Conservative.

Quebec:

In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois leads all parties with 37 per cent of support, but the Liberals are in second place with 27 per cent and the Tories are well back of that with just 18 per cent.

The article speaks of a Conservative minority, but then gives reason why that prognostication is dead wrong:

they have a considerable challenge because their national popularity is skewed by overwhelming support in Alberta, where they already hold every seat.

A four point lead nationally is essentially a dead heat, but when you consider that Alberta's over the top Conservative support is included, you could easily make the case, that seat wise, the Liberals may have the slight advantage.

Ipsos tends to find a closer race in Ontario than other pollsters, so people should consider that in the numbers. The Quebec numbers are somewhat surprising, if they were to hold, it represents big problems for the Cons, possible pickups for the Libs.

I put Ipsos at the bottom of the heap for true predictability. When you have reporters from papers that commission the polls saying they "tend to overstate Conservative support", it should demand a grain of salt. That said, if this pollster shows these sort of results, then it is reasonable to think it might actually be worse for the Cons, but even taken at face value, the regionals present a real problem, an election looks a crapshoot. The paper tiger roars.

Bravery Vs Sheer Stupidity (with poll)

I don't really listen to talk radio much, but this morning was an exception. The topic of choice on two separate shows, the unreal tragedy of the Greyhound bus murder. Why I kept listening, the debates largely centered around a discussion of whether or not the other passengers acted appropriately, should they have done more to help the victim?

I listened in amazement, as people called in from their cozy, sober second thought, environments, pontificating on what they would have done, some heaping scorn on the "wimps" for reacting as they had. Apparently, many bloggers and American commentators have picked up on this theme, going so far as to say question Canadian masculinity (whatever that means). The fact the reaction is even "at issue" is what I found most bizarre, because ultimately who in the hell is anybody to pass judgement on what amounts to a real world horror show?

I found it all entirely offensive, because to my way of thinking, the other passengers were victims too. I just can't image witnessing such a macabe spectacle, it will surely imprint their souls, something they will carry with them the rest of their lives. I have nothing buy sympathy, and appreciate the folly in trying look at the reactions rationally.

By all accounts, this wasn't even a typical stabbing, if there is such a thing. This man was butchered before people's eyes, the violence so intense, there was really nothing anyone could do. Getting everyone else off the bus and containing this man, was really the only option. Good on anyone who thinks they would have reacted differently, but it's easy to judge from afar, easier still to try and fathom a situation which is really off the charts insane. I don't think bravery has anything to do with the reactions, in fact I think anything else, given the circumstances, amounts to sheer stupidity.

With that in mind, I thought I would see if others agree: