Farmers Support Canadian Wheat Board

A large survey of farmers was released by the Canadian Wheat Board today. I watched Question Period today, and to hear the Conservatives, this survey shows complete vindication for their initiatives. I looked at the survey PDF, and not surprising, the government selectively uses the data. What is entirely clear, farmers overwhelming support the Canadian Wheat Board, want any decision making left to their own elected Board, not the government, and believe the CWB brings better prices.

On who best represents farmers views:

Are the views of __________ very close, somewhat close, not very close or not close at all to your own?

Canadian Wheat Board 31%, 33%, 16%, 19%

Federal Government 11%, 38%, 23%, 26%

Agriculture Minister Ritz 12%, 32%, 19%, 27%

64% believe the CWB shares the same views, while only 49% say the same about the government, 44% for Minister Ritz.

Supporting the CWB:

Do you support or oppose the Canadian Wheat Board?

Strongly support 39%, Somewhat support 26%, Somewhat oppose 13%, Strongly oppose 19%

65%-32% support

On the future of the CWB, farmers clearly want their ELECTED representatives to decide, not the Conservatives:

Who should determine the future of the CWB – the farmer elected directors of the CWB or the federal government?

Directors strongly 64%
Directors somewhat 13%
Government somewhat 5%
Government strongly 12%

By a staggering 77%-17%, farmers want their ELECTED directors to decide their fate, not a bunch of ideologues. Many of us who have defended the CWB have always pointed to the simple fact, if farmers wanted change, they have their own democratic mechanism to bring that about. Clearly, farmers feel they can decide their own path, thank-you very much.

More on government intervention:

The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court decision that stopped the federal government from removing the single desk for barley without introducing legislation to do so. Now that the court has ruled, would you have preferred that the government:

Introduce leg strongly 27%

Introduce leg somewhat 8%

Drop the issue somewhat 13%

Drop the issue strongly 47%

60%-35% want the government to drop the issue. Hello Mr. Ritz- strange to have the Conservatives, the supposed anti-government interference party, forcing themselves on farmers, when they prefer they get out of the way.

To be fair, when farmers are asked about opening up the barley market, they endorse a dual system:

Marketing Barley?

Sole CWB 27%
Dual market 41%
Open market 26%

It is debatable whether or not farmers can truly have both, but when asked a clear question, unlike the Conservatives dishonest phrasing, farmers do choose the open market:

Marketing Barley?

Sole CWB 40%
Open Market 52%

Farmers want an open market, so we should see them elect Directors who share their perspective.

A different result for wheat:

Marketing Wheat?

Sole CWB 42%
Dual market 45%
Open market 12%

When asked the clear question:

Marketing Wheat?

Solely CWB 57%
Open Market 39%

When it comes to wheat, opinion is much different. Again, based on the other findings, farmers will ELECT their own representation, that best represents their preference.

The Conservative study allowed for manipulation of the numbers, by asking a direct question, the results are much clearer. Farmers want an open barley market, prefer a monopoly on wheat, but don't want the government telling them what to do.

One more thing which I found interesting. Given the battle between the Conservatives and the CWB the past two years, it is noteworthy that farmers have a better impression of the CWB now, than they did before this government took office:

When asked if their impression of the CWB has improved in the last two years (since the Conservatives took power), 42% say more favorable, 14% less, 43% unchanged

CONCLUSION:

Let the farmer decide their own fate, under the direction of the Canadian Wheat Board, a board they have confidence in. Stop the jihad Mr. Harper!

Okay I'll Bite

The Toronto Star has another story, which details the internal Liberal debate about whether to force an election now or wait:

A mild case of summer-election fever is gripping the Liberal caucus, with some MPs convinced conditions are ripe to bring down Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.

But Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is so far resisting the calls, sticking with the rough plan to provoke a fall election instead.

Sources say the Liberal caucus meeting yesterday was punctuated with discussion about whether to pull the plug on Harper's government and plunge the country into an election campaign, with voters going to the polls around mid-July.

The election-now debate was reportedly pointed earlier this week when Dion met with the inner circle of caucus, known as the "priorities and planning" group of MPs. It's said that the major contenders in the Liberal leadership race, including deputy leader Michael Ignatieff and foreign affairs critic Bob Rae, were forcefully presenting the case to trigger an election sooner rather than later.

Debate at Liberal caucus yesterday centred on whether the party should seize this moment – when Conservatives are looking weak and besieged – to spring an election on Harper

Earlier in the year, when we heard talk of an election, Dion was apparently in the "hawk" camp, but had deferred to those in his inner circle that argued patience. This story tends to suggest that Dion is now committed to waiting, which is disappointing.

The article mentions one point, which mirrors my own concerns about waiting:

There's a sense in Liberal strategy circles that the government is in trouble and transition – that giving the government a few more months will just help Conservatives consolidate and do damage control.

It is fine to argue that the Liberals can use the summer to sell their policy ideas, allow Dion time to make his case, improve fundraising and election readiness. I have little doubt, that should Dion release an ambitious environmental plan, it will allow him to stay on the front page, always a challenge for an opposition leader in the quiet summer months. There is an opportunity for improving Liberal fortunes, especially if one considers events outside of their control, namely the economy.

The real problem with this plan, the Liberals don't act in isolation. It isn't as though the Conservatives stand still during this time, they do are also provided time to retool, regroup and develop a clear strategy for the fall. Couple that reality, with the clear understanding that the government tends to do better when Parliament isn't sitting, has the luxury of scripted announcements, and you see a counter balance to the idea of rising Liberal fortunes. In one sense, this summer allows Harper to reassert the "control" he has clearly lost at present. If the rumors are true, Parliament may not reconvene until as late as November, providing ample time to get the Conservative message back on track.

Speaking of November, it just so happens that the Liberals will have a convention the following month, which means, should Harper delay the return of MP's, there is a very small window to force an election, prior to that convention. I don't know about anybody else, but I see potential "issues" arising at that convention, as the media scours Liberal circles looking for a juicy leadership quote. The convention isn't supposed to be about Dion, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how a few mischievous discontents could change the theme. Yesterday, I heard mention of Liberals trashing their leader at an Ottawa garden party, true or not, no one is naive enough to think that Dion has a firm hold. Do we risk the prospects of waiting so long, that we enter another phase of discontent? Does anyone put it past Harper to delay Parliament, so it forces that convention before an election?

What I'm saying, there is risk moving forward, in a way by waiting, we lose control. It is hard to imagine another time in the future where the government is so off its game, in transition, bereft of ideas, basically in damage control mode, trying to play out the clock until the summer break. If you ask Conservatives if they will be glad when this session is over, their obvious answer tells us a great deal about whether it is wise to go now or wait.

Nobody can predict the future, Liberal prospects may improve, but just as likely, any "gains" will be offset by Conservative positives, meaning, at best, the electoral map will look much the same, with the negative current government predicaments a distant memory. I prefer the known, to the theoreticals of the future. Time will tell...

"I Would Have To Have Had Rocks In My Head"

Tom Zytaruk, in response to a question of possible doctoring of the Harper tape. If you want to see the interview, you can do so here. Zytaruk oozes sincerity, and stands by the tape. A few quotes:

Zytaruk:

"We talked for a little while. You here a break there, where I say thank-you. I thought the interview was over. Now, I can't remember if I turned the tape recorder on or off at that moment, but Mr. Harper had been stepping away and then spun around, on his heels, as a second thought kind of thing, too clarify something, to add. Now, anybody who's a reporter knows that this happens about ten thousand times a day, you think an interview is over, but you click it back on. But, we're talking about miliseconds...

"What I have on my tape, is the interview in it's entirety. I specifically wanted to ask Mr. Harper about this insurance policy. What I put out included all the ands/or, because I wanted it to be spot on accurate"

Duffy:

"So, you're saying if there were any edits, they weren't done by you"

Zytaruk:

Laughs, "No. I would have to have had rocks in my head, and I think all of Canada would agree"

Well, not all of Canada, but those of us off the Conservative koolaid. It's just nonsensical to think that this man would alter Harper's words, or play games, given the potential consequence. Common sense is all you require to pass judgement on Zytaruk "doctoring". I would add, if the Conservatives truly believed this to be the case, does anyone doubt Zytaruk's ass wouldn't be knee deep in court actions? Hello.

Earlier today, I threw out my own theory that this latest salvo is directly related to the libel case against the Liberals. On the CBC, this was indirectly confirmed as "part of the court action against the Liberals". The fact that the Conservative lawyers felt it necessary to spend large sums of money on expert opinion, to discredit the authenicity of the tape, speaks to a conclusion that this tape serves as the centerpiece of the Liberal libel defence. If the Conservatives can successfully prevent the Liberals from introducing the tape, they will handicap their case tremendously. This move today tells us that for Harper to be victorious, that tape cannot be allowed a clear airing, it must be dubious, or better yet inadmissable.

To resurrect a dead issue speaks VOLUMES about just how damaging this tape is too Harper. What actually happened today, the Conservatives confirmed that if this tape stands as is, it is pure poison. We now have two options, it is no longer a case of the Conservatives fluffing off what Harper said. Either the tape is "doctored" and it means nothing, or it is genuine and by extension, a very serious matter. The Conservatives own actions, the lengths they have gone, tell us all we need to know about the nature of this interview. Forget the Liberals, forget the RCMP, forget everything, the Conservatives are elevating this tape, by showing such determination in trying to discredit it.

Kady O'Malley made an astute observation on today's precedings, the Conservatives "oversold the evidence". Once it all sinks in, all the questions still remain. Taken further, giving the Harper team credit, they must have considered the political risk of re-introduction, another indication that there were concerns beyond short term bad press. Today's thesis, that will take months to fully flower, the Conservatives have concluded that they MUST make this tape disappear, or so thoroughly trash it, it becomes a he said/he said proposition.

Elections Canada Giving Conservatives Special Treatment?

Pierre the neutered poodle was at it again today, questioning the Liberals leadership campaign debts. Pierre and friends have stated that any extension for the Liberals amounts to special treatment by Elections Canada. With that in mind, reading this story today provided a good laugh. "Special Arrangement?":

Conservative election candidates have regularly missed deadlines for repaying campaign debts, indulging in the same supposedly illegal conduct for which the Tories are now denouncing Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.

Oblivious to their own record, Tories escalated their attacks...

According to a chart compiled by Elections Canada, 426 candidates — including 121 Conservatives — sought extensions to pay off loans after the 2004 election.

As well, 401 candidates — including 125 Conservatives — sought extensions to clear unpaid bills...

Furthermore, Elections Canada’s web site lists 19 candidates — five of them Conservatives — with loans that remained unpaid 18 months after the 2006 election.

It further lists 10 candidates — four of them Conservatives — whose unpaid loans were deemed to count as donations after 18 months. In five of those cases — three involving Conservative candidates — the donations exceed the legal maximum of $5,400 per donor.

Too rich for words.

The "Doctored" Tape

One has to wonder, why James Moore took to the air today, armed with expert opinion, declaring the Harper tape a fake:

The Conservatives say a 2005 audiotape in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to confirm that a financial offer was made to MP Chuck Cadman in exchange for his vote against the government is a fake.

The Tories say two expert analysts they hired have confirmed that the audiotape was doctored, specifically by inserting a sound clip that wasn't present in the original version.

I don't know if the tape was "doctored", but all that is relevant, and Moore avoided this fact, was the part where Harper mentioned "financial considerations" unedited, the voice authentic? I know what I heard, and nothing offered today changes that.

That aside, the really intriguing part of Moore's press conference was the timing. People will remember that as soon as this scandal started Conservatives were claiming the tape was doctored. That was THREE months ago, does anyone really believe the Conservatives just received these conclusions from the "experts" today? Please.

Why re-open, what amounts to a dead story? Conservatives will claim it is all part of a simple motivation, clear the PM's good name. I suspect it is something else entirely, because claiming the tape is fake just brings attention back, back to a place that the Conservatives have already argued is resolved. Conservatives already had the RCMP, re-introducing this tape claim doesn't really help Harper politically, or does it?

What I think was really happening today, a pre-emptive strike to scare the Liberals into formally apologizing, so that this legal case doesn't move forward. I see Moore today, as not an attempt to clear the PM, but an attempt to apply pressure on the Liberals, and in so doing, spare the Conservatives a potentially damaging disclosure in court, the prospect of key witnesses under oath. Now that an election is unlikely, it is entirely possible that this court matter will unfold in the quiet months ahead, the Liberals seem quite willing to move forward. Harper's initial threat of legal action, is actually looking less and less attractive, it could well turn out, irrespective of the final outcome, that there will be embarrasing moments for Harper and cronies.

This press conference today just doesn't pass the smell test, it was just odd, particularly the timing. Three months later, the RCMP investigation a dead end, the whole affair completely forgotten in political circles, and yet Moore throws out an allegation of fakery. This assertion means more digestion of the facts, more replaying of said audio, more dicey political coverage. Voluntarily drawing attention to an old issue, doesn't seem consistent with the Harper approach, which is why we must look at today in the wider context of the court action. Putting this tape into question is really about pressuring the Liberals to apologize, or come to some early resolution, that eliminates the chance of Conservatives, coming before a jury, squirming in their seats. There is much more here today than a simple matter of the "doctored" tape. What looked like a show of strenght, is probably more correctly an admission of future fear.

On "Cowardly" Liberals

Plenty of criticism, much of it justified, some good questions:

Pray tell, what exactly the Liberals waiting for? What will show them that this is it, and that they must go now? Are they waiting for a signed invitation from Harper? What about flying pigs? Little girls bearing skittles? Mana from Heaven? Hmmm? No one has told us exactly what these cowardly Liberals are waiting for.

You hear the above, in differing forms, across the blogosphere, as the Liberals are reduced to punching bags, everyone taking shots. Justified? Well obviously, from a principled position, hard to spin the abstaining strategy. It's weak, it's an abdication of responsibility, it's a loser politically, it reinforces negative impressions of Dion, it allows others, namely the NDP, to capitalize on the "opposition" vacuum, it is what it is. If anything, Dion's leadership numbers have plummeted further (who would have thought that possible), the Liberals have failed to benefit from Conservative missteps, missteps that have been plentiful. At best, the Conservatives various scandals have temporarily distracted the media from their previous focus on Liberal inaction, but that was never by design, just luck. In other words, this strategy has accomplished nothing, except to strengthen the arguments of detractors.

I've resigned myself to this strategy, of running out the clock on this session of parliament, spending the summer getting ready, with the ultimate goal of forcing an election in the fall. At some point, you tire of beating your head against a wall, the decision was made months ago, best to make the best of a questionable direction.

Despite my feelings, I acknowledge there are other points of view, and while I vehemently disagree, they aren't without merit. I knew the writing was on the wall, when I heard Dryden at a small fundraiser, he articulated the patience strategy in a clear way. Basically, you only get one chance, you go when you at maximum readiness, armed with policy, solid candidates and a clear gameplan. For whatever reason, those close to Dion feel more time is needed to prepare, a summer of consolidation, the Liberals will be stronger come the fall. Important to remember the timing, these decisions were largely made in the aftermath of the latest Quebec Liberal blowup. No one could quibble with the fact that the Quebec wing of the party was anything but ready, in fact it was in disarray. In waiting, it allows time to get candidates, develop some cohesion, even down to simple things like fax machines and office space. You can understand why some people were "spooked", rightly or wrongly.

I saw the latest no show routine of Liberal MP's, as they take a pass on the Conservatives Immigration reforms. It's hard to get worked up anymore, because it doesn't matter, that ship has sailed. Rather, you just wait for it too end, and hope the summer does bring some positives. I've chosen to distract myself from the abstaining, by focusing on some interesting, and yet to be released, policy ideas. In the end, that is what will matter, and it provides a personal motivation to swallow hard. I don't think the Liberals are cowards, I just think people with the sway have committed to a certain strategy, one that believes short-term pain will pay dividends in the end. In my mind, the Liberals checked out of Parliament a couple months ago, I'm just waiting for it too be official, so we can get on with it.

Leadership Fundraising Rules All Wrong

One thing is clear, the story isn't about Dion, Ignatieff, Kennedy, etc, still having outstanding leadership debts, it's that the current system doesn't work. Conservatives can smile with glee, at the prospects of former candidates needing extensions, to pay off their loans, but that partisan nonsense misses the point.

I don't want Stephane Dion, or any other MP, forced to tour the country ad nauseum, looking for handouts. I'm actually pleased that Dion has largely ignored his debt, and instead focused on his duties as leader of the party, and the opposition. While the optics might not be positive, allowing for childish gamesmanship, seems to me the country demands more of their elected officials, than having them consumed with fundraising. Would Dion's constituents be fairly treated, if they knew that his focus wasn't on issues that matter to them?

This new system was clearly put in place to handicap the Liberals, Conservatives don't even overtly deny that. On one hand, there is some rationale in taking the "fat cats" out of the equation, but the cost of a credible campaign for the leadership of a large country requires a large expenditure, an amount that isn't easily raised, no matter the small, grassroots donations. In other words, no surprise that system has lead us to this point.

Dion could have paid off his debt by now, all it would take is a national fundraising plea, a series of large dinners, etc. In the final analysis, had it been a priority, it seems reasonable to assume the job would be complete. But, at what cost? Aside from distractions, any leadership fundraising would essentially hurt the party fundraising. Hard to see how that is a positive, looking at the big picture.

The way I view this whole affair, the system is a politically driven farce, and good on the former candidates for keeping their priorities straight. About all Dion's debt tells me, paying it off was a secondary concern, trying to run a party took precedent. That isn't spin, you can quantify just how much time Dion has spent on his debt, you can demonstrate that he put the party before his personal circumstance. If that fact doesn't "look good", or give Pierre the poodle some ammunition, who cares. After all, it was only ever conceived with dubious intentions, by a party more interested in finding advantage, than developing a "fair" system.

Times Are Changing

A series of links, which form a coherent theme:

Conserving electricity:

Consumption is dropping faster than at any previous time and the province is ahead of the conservation target it set three years ago, Peter Love, chief energy conservation officer with the Ontario Power Authority, said in an interview.

From 2005 to 2007, Ontario's total consumption fell by 2.6 per cent to 150,8906 gigawatt hours, and the average for each person dropped by 4.6 per cent to 11,725 kilowatt hours. Both figures are adjusted for changes in the weather.

In addition, last year's weather-adjusted peak demand – the highest recorded use of electricity, a hot day when air conditioners were cranked up – was 24,820 megawatts, which was 1,462 megawatts below the amount forecast a couple of years ago by the Independent Electricity System Operator, the provincial agency that controls the flow of electricity.

That beat Queen's Park's first-stage goal – a reduction of 1,350 megawatts – for the first three years of its plan to cut peak demand by 6,300 megawatts by 2025.

"We have a lot of work to do. We're looking to create a culture of conservation

SUV sales tanking:

When automakers report sales numbers for May today, the 26% decline in U. S. sales of SUVs in the first four months of this year is expected to turn into a deep dive...

Others, like Ford Motor Co., believe that permanency has arrived. The days of consumers buying big pickups and big SUVs if they don't need them to transport goods or haul trailers is over, Ford sales analyst George Pipas said. "We don't think those people are coming back."

Bad news, but really not surprising:

General Motors Corp. is shutting four North American plants making pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, including its pickup line in Oshawa, eliminating about 1,000 Canadian jobs.

Chief executive Rick Wagoner told a media conference that ``recent developments on the global oil scene have forced us to take additional actions."

Higher gasoline prices represent "a structural change, not just a cyclical change," Wagoner said.

"It is, by and large, permanent."

And, what are people buying?:

Although hybrid cars account for only about 3% of U.S. car sales, their share is growing rapidly. Sales of hybrid cars surged 25% during the first four months of this year compared with the same period last year. And the pace accelerated last month, when sales jumped 58%. That outpaced the overall April sales gain of 18% for small fuel-efficient cars and comes as total new-vehicle sales are slumping.

I hope the Liberal plan considers the already changing dynamics.

Federal Government "Obsolete"

What has essentially happened today, 2/3rds of the country have just rendered the federal government irrelevant on the environmental file. Dragging their heels, playing games with numbers and baselines, creating a leadership vacuum, all are responsible for today's announcement, it really is a conclusion of their own making. A large portion of Canada now has a framework based on real reductions, not the nonsensical "intensity" based copout offered by the Conservatives. The door is open for others to join, and I suspect they will, as these provincial governments look to the future:

"One of the reasons we got together is that we think we can go further, faster," McGuinty told Canada AM Monday. "The feds have failed to put forward a plan in keeping with the ambitions and aspirations of Canadians."

Charest told Canada AM that the two provinces are pushing forward with a carbon cap-and-trade system because that's the way most of the world is going.

Charest noted that Quebec and Ontario use the 1990 carbon benchmark acknowledged by most of the world, whereas the federal government uses a 2006 benchmark.

Emilie Moorhouse, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the federal government is being "left in the dust."

"I think the collaboration that we're seeing between the provinces effectively renders the Harper government's approach to climate change obsolete," Moorhouse told CTV Newsnet...

Their cap-and-trade system trumps the Harper government's climate-change plan, one that has been criticized for not going far enough to combat global warming.

"We are very much open to expanding this and ideally, this would serve as the foundation for a national cap-and-trade program," Mr. McGuinty said.

"This is hardly an exclusive club that we are putting together here. I know that in the past, representatives of B.C. and Manitoba have expressed some interest in this, and Jean and I would want to work hard together with our colleagues to lay down the foundation."

"Left in the dust", "Obsolete", "Trumps", no wonder Hot Air Baird was fuming, there is nowhere to hide.

A very good synopsis.

Looking at the political angle, NDP supporters will be sure to note the endorsement of their approach. Important to remember, Charest already has a carbon tax, proving that no approach is mutually exclusive. I would also add B.C. is cited as a possible future partner to today's initiative, again suggesting the folly in either/or arguments. Where all of this leaves the Liberals, remains to be seen, but I suspect people have already factored this to the policy development, Dalton would hardly leave brother David out in the cold.

What is perfectly clear today, the mirage of "leading the world" has evaporated, more rightly the "obstacle has been removed", or just bypassed, as the case may be.

The Grain Of Salt Poll

I sort of debate even mentioning this poll anymore, the "analysis" from the last offering so revealing, it's hard to see any objectivity. Government in disarray, scandals abound, economy weakening, and yet, the Conservatives widen their lead, despite some off the wall Quebec numbers:

It said support for the Conservatives was up one point to 36% since the last survey three weeks ago. Support for the Liberals dropped three points to 29%, while the NDP's standing was unchanged at 14% and the Green party's stood at 11%, up two points.

In Quebec, the Bloc maintained the lead at 31%. The Liberals were ahead of the Conservatives 26% to 18%.

Given those Quebec numbers, you can assume Ipsos has the Tories rebounding in Ontario. Okay.

Don Martin, employed by said news organization that commissions this poll has said "Ipsos tends to overstate Conservative support". Don Martin is a smart man.

A New Dynamic

Hot Air Baird was spewing the usual on QP today, I think he actually believes it now. What was new, today marked the first time I can remember hearing a Conservative taking potshots at the Quebec Premier. Now granted, Baird was making his comments within the typical jabs at Ontario, but he accused Charest of inaction:

"Both of these Premiers have been in power for five years, and haven't done anything to get the big polluters to cut their GHG emissions."

"The Montreal exchange launched a carbon market, it was in response to the federal government's regulator measures, and because the two provincial governments of the central Canadian provinces don't have a plan to force the big polluters to clean up their act."

Charest has done "nothing" in five years, quite a statement on a possible new realignment in Canadian politics. People will recall the various meetings with Charest, as Harper tried to stengthen Conservative fortunes in Quebec. During the first year in office, photo ops, what appeared to be a good relationship. Baird's comments today, are indicative of a clear cooling.

Quebec and Ontario working more closely together, creates another rift in a distancing relationship. You now have a situation where the federal government is criticizing the Quebec government, woven within the tension between Ottawa and Queen's Park. Wouldn't it be something if Charest was asked to respond to Baird's you've "done nothing in five years" crack? Up until now, any disagreement has been buried in diplomatic niceties, Baird essentially calls Charest out.

Moving forward, if a sense develops that the two biggest provinces are finding common ground, effectively defending the same postion, directly at odds with the federal government, we might just see more sniping, as the former relationship sours just enough to be problematic. On the environment, and a more co-ordinated attack on the lack of action for the respective economies. A new dynamic, and one that doesn't work to the Conservatives advantage.

Democrats Blow It

It really was quite simple, but simple is a foreign word to the Democratic National Committee, the various Democratic state apparatus, basically anything to do with the party. Watching this entire primary season unfold, comparing it to the seem less system the Republicans have in place, is it any wonder why many Americans have the impression the Democrats are the party of excessive regulation, people that could turn making toast into a 33 page SOP.

It is true, Florida and Michigan played outside of the rules, in essence their belligerence forced the DNC to sanction them. However, once the arcane process continued, proportional delegates, based on regions, overall totals, caucuses with multiple voting, open primaries, mixed primaries, closed primaries, primaries and caucuses, it became clear, something would have to be done about Florida and Michigan. After all, it was really just a bunch of party hacks that went out of bounds, hardly fair to punish ordinary voters, leaving them no say in the process. In the end, it was another bunch of party hacks that decided how to carve up the delegates, in a way that was completely arbitrary.

Clinton can't win, no matter how the delegates were allotted, so the final outcome is more about resolution, than changing the race. In the end, all that matters, is everyone is satisfied, people don't feel disenfranchised, Democrats emerge united. When you think of the importance of these two states come November, Obama and Clinton are secondary, the real issue is ensuring the voters are happy with the outcome.

Getting back to SIMPLE, there was one solution, that would have avoided the spectacle of yesterday, with angry voters pledging to vote for McCain, yelling, protests, editorials- it's call a REDO. That's right, the greatest democracy on earth, the one that brags to the world about its system, can't REDO two primaries, in two states. No, that was such a herculian task, the option was dismissed. People can argue why both states chose not to REDO the primaries, clearly there was some political consideration, but it serves as a fundamental failure, and for that reason, the Democrats are getting exactly what they deserve. The money was there for the REDO, but somehow, it was too cumbersome to let people vote, fair and square, nobody bitter, no bad press, harmony. The kicker, a REDO probably would have had no effect on the who is the nominee, even if it did, isn't that democracy after all.

Yesterday was the climax of a self-created maelstorm, that never had to be, but did because some party hacks reacted to another bunch of party hacks, all the while, leaving voters as irrelevant pawns. Whomever you support, the objective truth here, the real casualty is democracy, and for that reason, I have no sympathy for the Democrats, in terms of fallout.

Crocodile Tears

Remember Tom Lukiwski's "heartfelt apology", that the media fawned over? The entire issue basically disappeared, as everyone concluded that Lukiwski was so sincere in his apology, time to move on. Here is what Lukiwski said in Parliament:

First and foremost, I want to apologize to all of my friends and colleagues who are gay or lesbian. I have no idea what they must think of me now. I have no idea what they were thinking when they first heard or read about my comments. To say that I am ashamed is not putting it in context and certainly not putting it in strong enough terms.

Their friendship and support for me during my entire career and my personal life has been extremely important to me, and today I ask their forgiveness. Just being in the public sphere means little to me compared to the opinion that I value of their opinion toward me, and to them I say I am truly sorry.

To the entire gay and lesbian community, I also want to extend my deepest and most abject apologies.

The comments I made should not be tolerated in any society. They should not be tolerated today. They should not have been tolerated in 1991. They should not have been tolerated in years previous to that. The words I used were more than just hurtful. They are words that should not be allowed to be spoken today, either publicly or privately.

I know there is an awful lot of anger directed toward me from members of the gay and lesbian community. That anger is certainly understandable and, I would say, it is justified. All I can say is that I hope that over the passage of time, my apologies will be accepted...

Let me conclude by saying that there is absolutely nothing I could say inside or outside of this assembly that would be an adequate apology to those people whom I have hurt. I deeply regret and I have deep remorse for my words of 17 years ago. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all of my colleagues in this House that I will spend the rest of my career and my life trying to make up for those shameful comments.

Turns out Tom was just doing what he had to, in an effort to make his comments disappear. What has Tom done to "make up for" those comments? Nothing:

Conservative member of Parliament, who promised earlier this year to spend his life promoting tolerance after a video surfaced of him making anti-gay remarks in 1991, was a no-show Saturday at Regina's gay pride parade.

Gay groups said they were disappointed that Regina-Lumsden MP Tom Lukiwski didn't even respond to an invitation to attend the parade.

"Mr. Lukiwski stated in his public apology ... that he would spend the rest of his life making amends,'' said gay pride spokesman Nathan Markwart. "Well, when exactly does that kick in?

"It is clear that his apology is less than sincere and is, in fact, hollow as it has not been followed up with any concerted effort to join our celebrations as an elected official who respresents gays and lesbians in Regina and surrounding area.''

Markwart noted that the disappointment was heightened by their understanding that Lukiwski was in the Regina area this weekend.

The fact Lukiwski was invited, and didn't even BOTHER to respond tells us everything we need to know about his bogus apology. When he stood up in the House, his words were nothing but damage control. The fact he has not followed through on his pledge, a testament to the truth, that he was only sorry for getting caught. The fact Lukwski has done NOTHING to make amends, really tells that his original words were closer to his soul, than the sheepish comments he made to salvage his career.

Boggles The Mind

I find this too be an amazing statement from a pollster, particularly when you've just concluded that by a 55%-39% margin, Canadians want the RCMP to investigate the Bernier matter:

I don't think it hurts the government in any way. It gives the opportunity to the Prime Minister to set a plank in a new platform that says we're going to change the Cabinet, we've got a new chief of staff in place and we can move forward," Mr. Wright said.

"If anything, this may have been the linchpin for changing the face of the government and actually getting on with the business of government."

The above reads like Conservative spin, which shows no relationship to the polls own findings. This mess doesn't hurt the government in any way? How can any credible person make that comment, given what has transpired? Did Wright see the Prime Minister, when he announced the resignation?

I'm of mixed opinion, just how much this hurts the government, primarily because it seems to me the media is largely missing the point, this issue getting lost in the tabloid angle. That said, isn't it just common sense that the Bernier affair is a negative, to some degree, for the government, on some level? Wright turns it all around, that this is actually a fresh start for the government, a positive development. Give me a freaking break, and thanks once again for revealing your horrible bias, quite alarming for a public pollster, lead by supposed neutral methodology.

UPDATE

No, nothing to see here.

The Emphasis On "Team"

If you were to put the Conservative and Liberal caucuses side by side, there is no question which possesses more "talent". Outside of rabid partisans, nobody views the Conservatives as particularly deep, in fact the government is largely a one man show, you could count on one hand Minister's that actually stand out in their portfolio's. Taken a step further, hardly impressive when the Conservatives are forced to lean on the mediocre likes of Van Loan and Poilievre to make the case. When you look at the "rosters", it is no surprise that the Liberals will emphasize the team in the next election.

Part of the team concept comes from a reaction to a negative, Dion so unpopular, the Liberals need to draw attention to others to look a credible alternative. I prefer to look at in this way, if you have assets you exploit them, leadership questions aside, particularly if it draws attention to your opponent's weakness. With that in mind, a radical idea prior to the next election. Heading into the campaign, what if Dion were to name his potential cabinet?

The Liberals already have the standard critics, but I think it would be a political winner to put together a theoretical cabinet this summer, allow each MP to focus on their theoretical portfolio, then announce the team when an election is called. In that way, the Liberals could present to Canadians what a Liberal government would look like. Campaigns tend to focus on the leader disproportionately, by announcing a future cabinet, it would necessitate a look beyond who is PM. As the campaign proceeds, any issues that arise would put more attention on whomever is responsible for that particular portfolio.

Imagine a scenario where the Liberals release the daily policy announcement, and Dion isn't the only voice, the only salesman. A foreign policy initiative, reporters seek out the Liberals Minister of Foreign Affairs Bob Rae, who would easily outshine Emerson, or whomever the Conservatives choose from their thin ranks. A question about carbon shifting, enter Ignatieff, the Liberal Environment Minister, a question on Justice, enter Ken Dryden or Dominic LeBlanc, Martha Hall Findlay on Immigration... you get the drift. In pre-announcing the potential cabinet, would that not draw attention to talent pool, allow Canadians to see the group the Liberals would offer. Put that, side by side, with the Conservatives, hard to find much in the way of a threat.

Such a plan would demand the media focus on people other than Dion, as events dictate which issues rise to the fore. It would also show Canadians a greater diversity with the Liberal team, as opposed to the white man blandness of the single note Conservatives. It's hard for me to see a downside in any pre-announcement, although unorthodox, it allows people to pass judgement on who is best able to govern as a whole. It says to Canadians, we are ready to go, here are the people, ready to hit the ground running. Harper vs Dion, an uphill battle, Liberals vs Conservatives, a much better presentation. The best way to dictate the message of team, put that team in place and allow them to shine.

CROP Poll

It's hard to find any good news for the Liberals in the latest CROP poll of Quebec, now statistically tied with the NDP for fourth in the province. First, the numbers, then a couple curious points about this poll:

The poll gave the Bloc, the only separatist party in the federal Parliament, 31 percent support, up three points in the past month. It put the Conservatives up one point at 28 percent, the New Democrats down one point at 16 percent and the Liberals down five points at 15 percent, Greens 8%

The poll also finds the Liberals fourth in Quebec City and the east, not to mention a distant third in Montreal.

What I would like someone to explain to me, because I'm not trying to make excuses, the breakdowns for this poll. Out of a total 859 polled, there were only 74"non francophones", which translates to a mere 8.6% of this poll. The last census of Quebecers, puts the francophone population at 80%, which makes me wonder why the francophone total is 91.4% of the survey. Further, despite the fact that the Quebec Metro population represents 9.2% of the population, it represents 20.6% of the poll. Now, the obvious answer is weighting, but tell me if this follows:

Francophones 785 Cons 27 Libs 13 NDP 15

Non Francophones 74 Cons 28 Libs 35 NDP 21

Without splitting hairs, the francophone vote is ten times that of the non-francophone, so let's do the following:

The Con non francophone total represents 1/11 of the overall total, the francophone 10/11. So, 27% francophone times 10 gives 270, plus 28 (only counted once) equals 298, which divided by 11 gives 27.1% total. Do the same math for the Liberals and you get 15%, for the NDP you get 15.54%. In other words, you get the same results as the overall poll totals. That would appear to be the weighting, and as I've already stated, it entirely overstates the francophone vote, while dramatically understating the non-francophone totals. I don't get it, I understand the need for regional sample sizes, but the above seems to suggest a strange final outcome.

Now that my head hurts, all this aside, this poll is just another indication of the challenges the Liberals face. Like I've said before, Dion's first, second and third priorities this summer should be Quebec.

Canadians Turning On Government

A large Harris-Decima online poll shows satisfaction with the government is deteriorating at an alarming rate. Even worse for the Conservatives, this poll was completed before the Bernier resignation:

It seems Canadians can't get no satisfaction when it comes to the Harper government.

A new poll suggests satisfaction with the performance of the Conservatives plunged 13 percentage points from December to May.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicates satisfaction fell to 40 per cent from 53 per cent - with majority dissatisfaction in every region of the country except Alberta.

The Mood of Canada poll also found that just 27 per cent of respondents said the Tories were doing a good job in regard to government integrity.

And 65 per cent said the government was doing a bad job on accountability.

The online poll of 3,565 Canadians was conducted May 14-23.

Only 27% think the Conservatives have "integrity", which suggests the drip, drip, drip of constant problems has had a cumulative impact. Also striking, the opinion of people on "accountability", the supposed signature rallying cry for the Conservatives.

Generally, satisfaction measures run higher than actual party support, the fact the gap has lessened so much, in such a short time, is very telling. Does anyone doubt the numbers would be worse still, had the poll been conducted this week?

"It's really not an either-or situation."

That quote, from Clare Demerse of the Pembina Institute, reacting to the NDP's cap and trade proposal announced today:

"It's really not an either-or situation."
Demerse said it's "an artificial distinction" to suggest, as Layton has done, that the NDP route would punish polluters while the Liberals' would punish consumers. She noted that a carbon price charged to big emitters will eventually end up being passed on to consumers.

And, the above is why I think the NDP have unnecessarily boxed themselves in on the environment file. On specifics, you could argue cap and trade trickles down anyways, as noted above, so you are essentially undercutting your own concerns about a carbon tax.

Layton admits as much on the NDP website today:

“We all know that the economy will be affected by any serious attempt to curb emissions,”

Which is why the NDP offers a billion dollars for "training", obviously in reaction to the lost jobs such a plan would bring. Anyways, if the NDP wishes to argue that they can focus on half the problem and get the desired result, floating themselves as the champions of the poor, while the Liberal plan is put on the backs of the "vulnerable", that is their choice, but in the end it won't fly. Why?

I don't know the Liberal plan, but if anyone wants to believe there won't be allowances to protect the people Layton champions, then they are in for a rude surprise. Layton argues the merits of cap and trade, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but in presenting such a black and white argument, the kneejerk attack on the Liberals, I think he has ultimately failed politically.

Ignatieff today:

"How to put together a revenue neutral carbon tax, leading towards, leading towards a cap and trade system. It's not an either/or situation, we might have a revenue neutral carbon tax, followed by a cap and trade system."

Exactly the point of Demerse, and a posture which will out-flank the NDP. The Liberals will offer a cap and trade component, but with some understanding, supported by experts, that it will take time to develop. A two stage approach that doesn't reject either view, but embraces them both, while the NDP have painted themselves into one corner. It may just end up that Layton loses his either/or argument, as Dion agrees on merit, but differs in approach, with an added element. I'm sure my NDP friends would vehemently disagree ;)

Liberals Will Take To The Air

I take this as a realization, of just how high the stakes, the Liberals will run ads to promote the "tax shift":

The cash-strapped Liberal party plans to spend a precious chunk of its election reserve to advertise their carbon tax when the scheme is unveiled next month.

I hope the party sends out a fundraising call, directly tied to "selling" the plan. At the very least, it's something the grassroots can get behind and I suspect the response would be good. Everyone understands this will be a tough sell, and I would recommend a Conservative-style call to action, wherein you are asked to donate to offset the attacks.

The good news, from a tactical perspective, there will be a coherent plan to market the idea and make sure people understand the concepts. The key will be a clear and concise message, if we get lost in the details, it's probably a steeper climb.

Why Maxime?

Not much to say, but when I saw this picture of Harper announcing Bernier's resignation, I was struck by how defeated and red eyed he looked. Like a kid who just found out his dog "Majority" was run over by a semi: