Copy And Paste

It’s completely natural to think that many of the Liberal ills can be cured if we merely look southward for inspiration. A common theme now, how do the Liberals replicate the Democrats success? There is no question some lessons can be learned, and Liberals would be wise to pick up on the more innovative ideas which we saw during this primary season and Presidential race. However, I confess to some weariness in thinking the American template is necessarily applicable here. Rather than the importation of ideas as a starting point, it might be more reasonable to develop our own unique starting point, which best incorporates the domestic circumstances, then draw on foreign examples as augmentation.

It’s important to sift through what was independently effective, and what was merely an extension of a phenomenon, which offers red flags for the copy and paste. As the pundits and commentators heap praise on all things Democrat, everything brilliant, everything contributing to the overwhelming victory, creating this uneven view of reality, it’s hard to get a clear picture. The bottomline, much of what the Democrats were able to achieve was contingent on the sheer force of personality of one man, a leader that comes around once in a generation if you’re lucky. With that incredibly powerful core motivation, it’s easy to inspire the grassroots, set up networks of volunteers, rake in heaps of cash and become competitive in non-traditional areas.

On top of the “rock star” angle, you have an American electorate that has just endured 8 years of what has amounted to the most unpopular administration in history, unprecedented disarray and basic incompetence. You combine an incredible natural disposition for change, with a leader blessed with the rare ability to resonate, and it created the perfect storm. That situation is unique, which means Liberals best be cautious, if we think simply parroting the strategies will bring similar results, that it will actually work.

We have a tendency to give the victor all the praise, in all facets, while simultaneously rejecting everything about the defeated. The trick now, making no assumptions, based on what has just occurred stateside, because if we think ourselves the same, if we believe that we just adopt the approach here and it will work, then we failed to acknowledge the “one off” characteristics of this past election.. It’s a different electorate, with a different history and set of circumstances, with different leaders and different dynamics. I think it best to proceed with caution, when it comes to mirroring the American experience, because quite frankly, I doubt we see anything like it again in our lifetimes, whether there or HERE.

"Calling Bluffs"

You won a MINORITY, that is your mandate Conservatives. Yes, the Conservatives have a stronger mandate, and the government enjoys some latitude, no matter the parliamentary makeup. However, if this is how you intend to set the tone, we'll let's "call bluffs" indeed:

The Conservatives are not backing down from threats to make the measures matters of confidence.

"I don't think there has been any change in our position around that," Kory Teneycke, spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, told The Globe and Mail. "We are prepared to make them [justice issues] confidence matters if necessary."

After the election, Mr. Teneckye reiterated the Conservative resolve to move the justice provisions through Parliament.

"If the other parties want to go into an election on criminal-justice issues, I think we are prepared to call their bluff on that," he said in an interview.

It is unclear just when the crime bills will be introduced in the House of Commons. But the opposition has already indicated its willingness to vote against them, even if it means a return trip to the polls.

Teneycke's bully routine, threatening confidence votes if necessary, demonstrates one simple fact- for all the bluster of a more inclusive and co-operative Parliament, the Conservative government intends to operate, as though in defacto majority. I say let the Conservatives threaten this and that, frankly I'm all for "calling bluffs", because I suspect the non-confidence routine will BLOW UP in Harper's face.

I would encourage the Liberals to operate on simple principle, if legislation is presented which we can't support, no hint of compromise or inclusion, then we simply vote against, Harper can determine if it's a confidence matter. The ONUS is on Harper, it is not the role of the majority to simply cower to the minority, that's not the way game works, Canadians have spoken. Harper engineered an election to get a majority, he FAILED, so let's dispense with strong arm rhetoric, and let the government no straight away, that tone doesn't fly.

I'm just not particularly worried about any Conservative threats, because, despite our internal problems, the Liberals are actually well positioned in this regard. First, it is an open question whether the GG would grant another election, in the next year, at the minimum. There are no guarantees for the Conservatives, they would risk their own government, a scenario which partially declaws.

More importantly, any return to the polls, on anything other than the economy, is a complete and utter non-starter with the electorate. I almost laugh to myself, at the thoughts of Harper blowing another 300 million, based on the argument, that the opposition won't support his crime legislation. You can't be serious? The Canadian public has NO appetite for another election, they expect the parties to WORK TOGETHER, so the prospects of Harper jamming legislation down the opposition throat OR ELSE, is almost delicious. Go for it Kory, I have a good hunch how that one works out for your team.

Part of the problem here, there is little doubt that the Conservative inner circle suffers from an arrogance, which tends to cloud their judgement. The Liberals are on their knees, broke, leaderless, demoralized, we can have our way, we can step on their throats and they will always cry uncle. Ah, but here's the rub, the Conservatives blindspot. Yes, much of the deduction is true, but the Liberals misfortunes actually work to our advantage, in any "calling bluffs" scenario. Canadians are WELL aware of the Liberal Party's problems, nobody doubts they are in no position to credibly challenge the Conservatives for some time. Which means? The Liberal MP's can throw up their arms, remind us all again of the party's problems, and then say- do Canadians really think the Liberals want another election? I think the Liberals can make a powerful argument, that any vote of non-confidence is a forced position, based on Harper's tactics, surely you can understand that an election is the last thing we want too. The optics are favorable, and combined with Harper the "bully", I would say game on. An added bonus, the Bloc and NDP singing the same tune, repeating the theme of the minority not respecting the majority, it all adds up to trouble for the Conservatives.

So, here we go again, the first signals from the Conservatives, nothing's changed. It is imperative that the Liberals set their own tone early, and that should include a firm response on "bluffs", because we might just call yours. Call me completely and utterly UNAFRAID Kory.

Manley Out

Just this morning, I was reading speculation on Manley's entrance, mere hours later comes this:

John Manley says he won't be seeking the leadership of the federal Liberal party.

But as he's done this time, Manley ultimately decided he wasn't prepared to throw his hat in the ring.

Part of the problem here, these potential candidates are up against several campaigns which have been planning for months, if not YEARS. Not an easy task to elbow in at this stage, despite some outreach, a sense that others are too far ahead in terms of ground game.

I don't dislike Manley, quite a capable man, with an impressive pedigree, in many areas. However, when Manley decided to carry Harper's water on Afghanistan, it revealed a stunning naivety, the panel always a calculated ruse to get Harper off the partisan hook. Manley gave Harper credibility, Manley allowed Harper to enact recommendations which were always pre-determined, even Manley himself mused about the certainty, prior to the panel's creation. That panel, was quite simply a public relations exercise to absolve Harper, nullify the issue. For all of Manley's expertise, the fact that he failed to see his involvement for what it was, would have haunted him, if he chose to run.

I can't say I'm disappointed with Manley's decision.

Why Obama Will Lose

Someone once told me, a provocative title helps draw attention. Hi there :)

In all seriousness, upsets of biblical proportions aside, Obama is set to win tomorrow, the electoral margin the only item in question. Everyone will articulate elaborate reasoning's as to why Obama beat McCain, but in my view, it all comes down to a few simple facts, and some timely turns in the road.

I look at a state like Virginia as representative of a national dynamic. Whether Obama actually takes the state tomorrow is largely irrelevant to my point, it's really the reality there that extrapolates to a wider theme. Obama has FOUR times more campaign offices in Virginia than McCain. Obama's television expenditure in Virginia is SEVEN times that of McCain. Obama's GOTV organization absolutely dwarfs anything McCain can muster. All of those factors, which are mirrored in other key states, come down to a fundamental truth, Obama has the money, McCain simply doesn't. Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, leaving McCain hobbled, is the real story behind the story. Had that development not occurred, I suspect we would be in for a long night, the outcome nowhere near as certain. One caveat, despite the fact McCain made a crucial error in accepting public financing, it is noteworthy that Obama was able to inspire so many, 3 million Americans, who gave between $25-100 to his campaign.

Some of my friends, are saying they expected this outcome all along, it was never really in doubt. I would argue, that despite all of Obama's advantages, despite this being the year of the Democrat(the party set to make gains everywhere as voters turn on everything with a hint of an attachment to Bush), despite the charisma, the desire for change, all the intangibles working in his favor, in the final analysis, his victory is partially attributable to good fortune.

It was only a few weeks ago that McCain was actually ahead in the polls, ahead in the key battlegrounds, the only time he had the advantage during this entire race. The Palin choice looked advantageous, I seem to remember Democrats and the media befuddled, McCain was in stride, the Obama campaign in full regroup. Now, some would argue that Palin wore thin, it was inevitable that the selection would come back to haunt McCain. I'm not so sure, that view was clearly helped by unforeseen circumstances, circumstances which acted as a cold shower on the entire electorate, shaken to the core. When the stock market went into crisis, you will see a clear co-relation in the polls, you will see it was here that Palin's folksy charm morphed into unproven ditz. Everything became deadly serious, the superficial pre-occupation of American politics evaporated, and attention was pointed. In that environment, Palin was entirely unattractive, while McCain's weakness was exposed, the Obama campaign quickly seized the moment to re-calibrate the message of change, using the economy to bring people back to their senses. You see, it was always Obama's year, but it was getting lost in the tabloid journalism, nobody should make the mistake of giving voters too much credit. However, when gigantic heaps of dung hit the fan, people got scared, people actually focused, and Obama regained, never to look back. I wonder the outcome, had the meltdown not occurred, for all the advantages, sometimes and unfortunately, a candidate's fate is dependent on some fortuitous development. In my opinion, the stock market crash was the key factor in this election, wherein everything changed, then crystallized.

Whatever the factors, one thing is clear, America will be in a better place Wednesday, than they have for a VERY LONG time. It would be a good morning to buy stock methinks :)

In Defense Of Gerard Kennedy

Interesting, a couple of rumors of his entrance, and already the lazy criticisms of Gerard Kennedy begin. The only guy who had the fortitude to resist the easy endorsement, rejecting Harper's cynical attempt to curry favor with Quebecers, somehow that's a bad thing. A guy who decided he had enough of theoretical indoctrination, and instead ventured into the practical world, the only motivation a pretty selfless endeavor, that's a bad thing. But, the real criticism, Gerard Kennedy, he gave us Dion, forever blemished in the eyes of many. Bullocks!

I must admit, I assumed that Kennedy would take a pass on this leadership race. However, it would appear that Kennedy is giving another run serious consideration, the idea of the "renewal" candidate floated. That characterization was always a given, should Kennedy decide to run, because after all, if you paid attention in the last campaign, he was already well ahead of the curve in this regard. Whether Kennedy runs, or he doesn't, I'd like to clarify what I perceive as an unfair attack.

Yes, Gerard Kennedy moved to Dion in the Liberal leadership. Yes, that decision was a pivotal moment at the convention, mostly because Kennedy had the rare capacity to deliver an overwhelming number of his delegates. However, what I've always found completely unfair, the way others "blame" Kennedy for the convention outcome, as though he the ONLY player, as though his decision was different from OTHER candidates, OTHER delegates. We all love Martha, but didn't she move to Dion initially? Why doesn't Findlay wear the goat horns too? Ditto for Dryden, ditto for Volpe, both of which eventually went to Dion on the final ballot. What of Rae, he didn't move to Ignatieff on the final ballot, a non-decision that was crucial in the final analysis? As a matter of fact, not ONE of the contenders in that room went to Ignatieff, only Brison after Rae was out.

Kennedy may have been the big player, but this was only a function of his popularity, his sizeable delegate total. The real story of the 2006 convention wasn't Kennedy, it was the simple fact that NOBODY moved to Ignatieff, the entire mood of the convention revolved around people shifting to stop him. Brison made his decision, Dryden made his decision, Findlay made her decision, Volpe made his decision, Rae made his decision and Kennedy made his decision, all of which conveyed a common theme, a collective mindset- Anybody But Ignatieff. With all the candidates, it was simply astounding to watch person after person decide against Ignatieff, the final insult, the greatest, when old friend Bob Rae sat on his hands, which essentially gave it too Dion, or at least confirmed the tide. Why didn't Bob Rae see the Dion danger and act to try and prevent it?

People want to blame Kennedy, I would say they have a selective memory, because all the players had a role, and in the final analysis most of it was counter-productive. The funniest part, seems to me DELEGATES vote, was Kennedy to blame for the fact that 2/3rds of Rae's people moved to Dion on the final vote? What was Martha thinking, moving to third place Dion after the first ballot? What were all those other candidates thinking moving to Rae, was this an orchestrated attempt to give the underdog Rae the job? What was Ken Dryden smoking when he went to Dion because he had "a greater chance of winning" the next election? In other words, it was a very complicated affair, and I frankly don't understand how Kennedy is singled out, when by all accounts, he made a personal decision to back a preference, just as EVERY other candidate did, just as EVERY other floating delegate did.

I don't know if Kennedy decides to run again, but I know one thing, anybody who discounts his candidacy because he "gave us Dion" has a serious case of selective memory and disjointed logic.

Ground Zero

The latest Liberal fundraising numbers for the 3rd quarter are depressing on one level, but they serve a valuable purpose moving forward. The fact the Liberal Party lags slightly behind the NDP, light years back of the Conservatives, should keep people focused on the number one issue moving forward, MONEY. It's fine to talk about this and that, differing strategies, but it's all really wishful thinking if you don't have fuel for the engine, every brilliant idea needs cold hard cash, which should put the impetus on the central problem.

The 3rd quarter fundraising totals are as follows:

Conservatives 6,367,676.44 (47,315)

NDP 1,889,805.02 (18,630)

Liberals 1,855,252.99 (15,027)

This last quarter is a really good gauge of where the parties stand, because it occurs leading up to, and including the election. This is the period when people are more inclined to give, better engaged, where you can maximize your fundraising. All the parties record a noticeable uptick, if you're motivated to donate, this is your period. Within that reality, another huge red flag for the Liberal brand, the NDP with a clear advantage on the donor side. It's the same story we've seen for the last two years, and that is the concerning part, the "same story". No evidence of progress, no sense of a coherent strategy, just more talk of getting it right in the future, a sentiment we hear every quarter.

The Conservatives are ROLLING in dough, and we see how that translates to affecting the political reality. All the potential leadership candidates had better embrace a bold and innovative strategy to ramp up fundraising, beyond easy platitudes, because whomever wins will be crippled by a Conservative monetary barrage, with little in the Liberal quiver for counter. It is in the candidate's self interest to focus on fundraising, because he/she's chance for ultimate success is dependent on making the Liberal brand competitive.

This leadership race begins at ground zero, let's see who develops a plan to bring passive Liberals (apparently 95% of us) to the table, as well as new people, with wallets agape. Money isn't sexy, it's not lofty policy or ideals, but it's the essential ingredient, from which everything else depends.

Out Of The Starting Gate

Angus Reid, last election's most accurate pollster, sent me their first Liberal leadership finding, which is somewhat useful in a limited way. All the candidates imaginable are polled on favorable/unfavorable ratings, broken down into overall voters and Liberal voters. It's hard to draw any conclusions on somebody like LeBlanc or McGuinty, because people don't know enough about them, to have an informed opinion. However, when you look at known quantities, namely Ignatieff and Rae, you find something to chew on.

Fav/Unfav/Unsure:

Iggy 30%...34%...36%

Rae 30%...44%...26%

McKenna actually scores best, but he's out, so... Manley is 30%/30%, 40% unsure.

Quite a contrast between Rae and Ignatieff. Of note, no contender scores above 34% on favorability, but Rae is the clear loser on unfavorability. The above show solid apprehension, without much room to grow, a fact which speaks to Rae's baggage. A partial explanation, a full 89% of those polled view "experience as an economic manager" as important in making a decision on leadership.

When those that voted Liberal in 2008 are asked, Rae again comes up short.

Fav/Unfav/Unsure:

Iggy 51%...23%...25%

Rae 48%...31%...21%

Of note, the numbers for Manley here are somewhat more relevant, since Liberal voters may have greater familiarity. Iggy is plus 28, Rae 17, Manley only 18.

Back to the principles, Rae lags behind with both sets of voters, the general public and the Liberal voters.

Ignatieff's numbers aren't great, particularly with the general public, but they are pretty impressive compared with Rae. It would seem Rae must overcome some firm opinion to be a viable candidate, whereas Ignatieff still enjoys plenty of space to make an impression with voters. I would equate Rae's negatives, with Dion's in Quebec, ignore at our own peril. That said, EARLY days, but something to think about moving forward.

Maybe A Good Thing?

I was out of the loop yesterday, but I caught a radio piece in the morning, relating to Bob Rae possibly taking a pass on the Liberal leadership. Since then, I read this morning that Rae will run, the rumors "bullshit", let the games begin. Anyways, I was doing the mental math prior to hearing Rae would run, and I came to a quick conclusion- maybe this was good thing?

I confess, I'm having a hard time getting particularly excited about this leadership race. My reasoning, this leadership race will be a grand distraction, in terms of fundraising, party "renewal", policy development, unity, effective opposition, basically all the ingredients required to get this party back on course. With that in mind, Rae taking a pass was entirely attractive in one sense. Eliminate Rae, then it's pretty much an Ignatieff coronation. That doesn't translate to an endorsement of Ignatieff, but within that reality, people could move forward with some basic assumptions, our collective energy placed where it needs to be, straight away, the leadership race almost a sideline.

I have no empirical evidence or "insider" information to support this thesis, but my instincts tell me that Ignatieff will be hard to beat in this leadership race. It would appear, Iggy has substantial backroom support, as well as a potent grassroots network throughout the country. I honestly don't see a Manley bid seriously challenging Ignatieff, and LeBlanc's run looks more like a future audition, than serious contender. That effectively leaves Rae as the only credible alternative, so his rumored exit had appeal, because it would short-circuit a six months navel gazing exercise, that undercuts the real issues at hand. Early days, but it's hard to see Rae actually winning, because the discussion will invariably turn to the economy as the central question moving forward, Rae's baggage biblical in scope. That reality, brings us back to Iggy again, but we only arrive there after a torturous, and inevitably divisive, process.

It's a mute point now, Rae will run, but in the grand scheme, part of me wishes the rumors true. In terms of the Liberal Party, a neutered leadership race, with eventually victor assumptions, is probably the best case scenario. But, alas...

"Electability"

Another "senior" Liberal, who refuses to be named, probably because his/her analysis is so ridiculously obvious to be embarrassing. You mean, electability is a consideration?:

'Getting an electable leader' will be crucial, one insider says, if the party is to position itself as a viable alternative to the Tories

Thought I might put up a poll, to see if others agree with the electability argument:

Back In The Day

Hilarious on one level, absolutely pathetic on another, it's hard to reconcile the Conservatives today, from those guys way, way back, a little over TWO WEEKS AGO. Reading the news reports, it's as if the Canadian election is a distant memory, no journalist capable of venturing back into the archives to do a compare and contrast. Let's try and jog your memory, because I do realize we live in different times now, than those earlier days THIS MONTH.

Remember when the markets really went into the shitter, Bush on television daily, bailouts, meltdowns, unprecedented uncertainty? Did you know the stock market is now higher today than when Harper was running around the country accusing Dion of "panicking", offering a plan, which Harper then mirrored once clear of the electorate? Remember within that meltdown, Harper and Flaherty were promising no deficits, accusing others of ruining our fiscal advantage? Remember when Dion hesitated when asked about the possibility of a deficit, and was then mocked by Conservatives? I know, it's hard, so long ago, geez there were still leaves on the trees for cripes sake.

If there is one thing that needs to happen when parliament reconvenes, it's that the Conservatives MUST wear the complete hypocrisy, the intellectual dishonesty, displayed over the course of mere weeks. The FLIP FLOPS are of biblical proportions, so obscene that they've made a mockery of the past election, voters effectively hoodwinked.

Listen to Jim Flaherty today, it's simply amazing:

OTTAWA - Finance Minister Jim Flaherty warned Wednesday of "misguided" attempts of balancing the books during a period of global economic uncertainty - the clearest sign yet his Conservative government may be forced to post a deficit.

"We will do what we can, despite challenging economic circumstances, to keep the budget balanced," Flaherty told a luncheon business crowd in Toronto. "But we recognize that we work for Canadian families, not fiscal forecasters. What we will never do is engineer a surplus at any price, because that price would ultimately be paid by Canadian families."

"But also unacceptable," he added, "is a devotion to surpluses simply for the sake of saying you achieved them. That view refuses to take into account the long-term damage that can result from misguided attempts to balance the books during a historic global downturn."

If you read between the lines, Flaherty isn't just softening the ground for future deficits, he's also leaving room for one THIS fiscal year. I seem to recall people musing about that reality during the election, but why split hairs, that was so yesterday.

It will be fascinating to watch "Deficit Jim" and the gang navigate through their own contradictions. Even moreso, will the Conservatives be allowed to get away with their ruse, what has no amounted to pulling a fast one on the Canadian people, to ensure re-election? How it unfolds, will be a definitive referendum on any semblance of accountability. At least on income trusts, the government waited a few months to do a complete 180, but this flip flop is so FRESH and blatant, surely all those fair minded, unbiased media types will rightfully NAIL THEM TO THE WALL. Dare to dream...

New Liberal Buzzword: "Renewal"

Right out of the gate, Dominic LeBlanc puts the focus on Liberal party "renewal". Expect to hear all the candidates speak to the concept, akin to the nauseating "change" mantra of our American cousins. Everyone agrees that the Liberal Party is in need of reform, but the crucial point for me, who best articulates "renewal" in a substantive way, who puts meat to the bone, beyond easy platitudes and generalities.

We've heard it before, it was only a couple years ago that various candidates spoke to the need for "renewal", but in the final analysis, nothing really came of the rhetoric. In my mind, that failure to translate words to action is the greatest regret of the Dion reign. There was no sense whatsoever of a comprehensive plan to re-energize and expand the grassroots, make the party more egalitarian, less elitist, no direction in terms modernization and outreach. Maybe we ask too much, but the harsh reality, little evidence of even incremental evolution, it's still pretty much status quo.

Leblanc is wise to seize the "renewal" mantra, because I suspect many will see the other principles as representative of the Liberal establishment, the word brings an outsider flavor that will resonate with rank and file. But, I think we need to be careful, it's not about generational change or fancy slogans, no matter the candidate, who brings a real understanding of the institutional challenges, who demonstrates a depth and the drive to really make it a focus, rather than a convenient talking point.

I have plenty of real world ideas, and from what I gather, many ordinary Liberals are starting to express their concepts for moving forward. Rather than a pat on the head, it will be interesting to see who presents detail, a firm timetable, a credible plan. Within that discussion, obviously policy will be key, but it must go beyond simple arguments of appealing to different constituents.

The heart of the discussion, revolves around a simple practicality, MONEY. It's fine to articulate lofty ideals for "renewal", but any real application is dependent on cold, hard cash, it's all irrelevant, if you don't have the machine to drive the concepts.

I read yesterday, that only 5% of Liberals give to the party on a regular basis, a fact which is both a positive and a negative. That figure means there is a latent pool of support that already exists, the need to bring new membership not as crucial as first blush would suggest. That doesn't preclude a plan to draw in new members, but it means that the first step is motivating what already exists. Who steps forward with practical ideas to change the present apathy?

Rather than go through a leadership process, which effectively puts on hold the "renewal" until after the captain is chosen, I want to see if any of the candidates begin the practical now, give us something we can point to in their riding, as a template for the greater party. In other words, rather than taking to the stump to win over support, let's hope we see some multi-tasking, wherein a candidate can demonstrate some example of how the rhetoric meets the road. What strategies are you employing in your corner of the national party, what innovative ideas are you bringing to the table, what's working and why? Something you can put in a resume, rather than an essay. Everyone will seize the "renewal" agenda, it's a trendy necessity, but practical application, with a comprehensive depth, will move us beyond simple pandering.

Leadership News

Below, two prominent Liberals react to the news that Frank McKenna has decided against a run for the party leadership:




I must confess, it makes me happy too :)

Sour Grapes

One thing about the post-election discussion that really irks me, anybody who mentions potential media bias against the Liberals, or points to the role of negative attacks, is rejected as simply a case of "sour grapes". It's as though Liberals are the only one's who need a period of reflection, don't dare address other avenues that clearly FAILED during the process. Even more stunning, the fact many conservatives still cling to the empirical fallacy of a "left wing media".

I've argued before that the Conservatives attack ads on Dion were effective in two ways. Obviously, the ads themselves created an impression with Canadians, no reasonable person disputes the success. However, where these ads really pay dividends, is the way in which they influence the media frame. The ads plant the seed, and then the journalists run with the characterization, further cementing the impression, to the point of conventional truth. In other words, the ads themselves gain traction because the media effectively carries the water, they reinforce the terms with the public. The Conservatives have mastered the art of succinct terminology, which is then validated by a media which is passive, merely a conduit for propaganda.

Today's must read comes from The Tyee, which details much of what I believe, in terms of the media puppeting the chosen Conservative spin, bereft of any journalistic filter:

If the commercials seemed true to the electorate, it was because the media were repeating the same message in their news stories and commentaries.

It was the combination of paid (ads) and free (news stories and commentary) messaging that did Dion in. But the role of the media in that endeavour has been pretty well expunged from history.

It's a good read, which details how the use of the "flip flop" characterization was primarily effective because it became part of the media assumption. The article points to the usual media suspects, but the terminology extended to all media outlets, even those Conservatives place in the "left wing media" camp. A great example of this general theme, the Afghanistan debate. If you actually go back a year prior to the actual "compromise", you will find the Liberal rhetoric hadn't really changed in a substantive way, particularly when compared with the light years "flip" of the Conservative position. Despite that, Harper was seen as pragmatic during the exercise, the Liberals were the "flip floppers". The superficial analysis was simply breathtaking, but yet there it was, primarily it worked, because it fit nicely into an already established frame, lazy journalism found another example.

The media must share some blame for the Liberal woes. That fact doesn't shelter the Liberals from their own self-reflections, which is clearly required, it isn't an "excuse", merely a recognition. It is empirical fact that the Conservatives have received more favorable coverage than the Liberals the last THREE elections (two of which have already been statistically verified, the 3rd will be, I have NO DOUBT). You don't just GLOSS over a reality, which has nothing do with partisanship, it's part of the equation. The media failed badly this election, they failed to use a critical eye during the election, the failed to present a honest discussion of the issues. That should bother everyone, regardless of preference, because what we receive now is becoming more and more slanted, it is part of a manipulation. Anyone who posits a left wing media should be laughed at hysterically, so detached from reality a sad statement on naked ignorance. Anyone who doesn't factor in the role of the media this election, when drawing conclusions, omits a central theme, unless of course information dissemination is a minor affair, how people receive messaging trivial.

Liberals need to do some soul searching, but part of this introspection should bring a realization that we are "up against it", when it comes to slick propaganda that has perfected the art of using the public medium to validate their frames. The Liberals can either play this game too, or develop a strategy that finds ways around entities which don't have the public interest at heart, which are so institutionally arrogant that they see no need for their own reflections, their own need for "reform". Liberals need to understand the climate, and know it's predisposed to be harsh, relative to their chief opponent. That ain't sour grapes, that's fine wine.

Liberals Should Move...

One of the bigger questions moving forward, where should the Liberals position themselves on the political spectrum, to maximize their electoral chances. Do they move left, and attempt to appeal to soft NDP supporters and to some degree Greens, or should they move to the center and retake some lost ground to the Conservatives? It's a pretty complicated reality, especially when voters don't necessarily fit into neat segments on a spectrum, so any overt positioning is problematic.

There isn't much argument that the Dion reign represented a move left for the Liberals, relative to his predecessor. Given the lack of voter support, one could argue that Liberals are mistaken, if they think moving away from the center is politically shrewd. Further confusing, any verdict must also factor in Dion's low personal appeal, maybe the message was attractive, the messanger not so much. Another leader, with the same progressive agenda may very well have delivered a mandate, so the latest election results shouldn't translate to any statement on the political spectrum.

However, no matter the equation, you do hear many Liberals now arguing that the party needs to sit firmly in the center, if we are too form the next government. Forget about the NDP, and remember Greens voters have more of a tendency to cut across the political spectrum. One could argue the Bloc is left in orientation, and yet, the Conservatives were within a serious gaffe or two of drawing away considerable support, ideological considerations aside. Moving to the center, doesn't necessarily alienate progressive voters, but it would appeal to soft Conservative support, you could build a winning coalition.

You don't find much in the way of striking evidence, if you look at the past elections. You look at where Chretien and Martin positioned themselves, and review the other party shares, it's hard to find consistency that would show a political preference. The Conservative share was down, but it was divided, and the NDP share was down too, and yet those Liberal governments were viewed as centrist. In the final analysis, any decision ultimately comes to down to a "gut" feel for where the party needs to be.

Apart from our leadership problems, I don't think there is much debate, that Liberals lost the battle with voters on the economy. Although, the strategy allowed for pumping past fiscal management, the Liberals were never able to get much traction, relative to Harper. Moving forward, with the economy almost a certain central argument next election, any spectrum considerations must incorporate this reality. The middle class will simply not endorse the Liberals on the economy if they were to move left, or stay left, with another advocate. Most voters, rabid partisans aside, are simply terrified of a federal NDP approach to the economy, particularly when uncertainty reigns. If you want to appeal on the economy, the Liberals are wise to return to their centrist ways, a mix of free market endorsement, that understands the global economy, fiscal prudence and competitiveness. A modern Liberal approach on the economy that is innovative and balanced, a program which rejects the left arguments, which isn't at war with business, which understands, as most already do, you need healthy big fish for the ecosystem to sustain. On the economy, a move back to the center is a good idea.

On social issues, it depends on the topic, but in general, the Liberals are fine where they are under Dion, possibly some room to move farther left. Two exceptions on this score, one crime and two immigration. The modern Liberal party must respond to people's concerns about crime, so that the perception of favoring criminal over victim doesn't remain. I don't think the party has to move much, just make a more coherent case for why their approach on crime is proper and forward thinking. On immigration, it's time for the Liberal Party to re-examine it's kneejerk policies and quit treating this file as a sacred cow. There is great risk for potential alienation, but the Liberals can stand apart if they develop a modern interpretation of integration and cohesion.

In a perfect world, I would like to see the Liberals centrist on economic matters, social progressive on others, within that a hint of practicality and pragmatism. Center-left on the spectrum, but more complicated than that on further review. Afterall, most people aren't philosophical purists, the trick is viewing each issue as a subset and understanding the appeal overall. Maybe the best strategy, the Liberals should let other parties be left and right, while we draw on each where applicable, morphing into something of a moving target on the spectrum.

Turning Off A Nation

Although somewhat effective, the Conservatives unprecedented GUTBALL attack ad regime is responsible for historical low voter turnout. Congratulations Prime Minister, the path to victory, that turned off a nation:

Officials from Angus Reid Strategies on Thursday revealed polling results to The Vancouver Sun that showed the ubiquitous roll-of-the-dice TV ads that targeted Liberal leader Stephane Dion as a flip-flopping advocate of a carbon tax persuaded 11 per cent of Canadian respondents not to vote for any candidate at all.

The roll-of-the-dice attack ad -- as well as a series of anti-Dion TV spots that aired soon after the Quebec MP was elected party leader in December, 2006 -- were key to producing the lowest voter turnout in Canadian electoral history, pollsters Andrew Grenville and Mario Canseco said in an interview...

“poisoning the well”...

The most common words those surveyed associated with the roll-the-dice TV ad were “disgust,” “lies” “unethical” and “unCanadian.”

Whiny Stephane had a point:

Grenville said Dion was absolutely right on Monday when, in announcing he would step down as Liberal leader, he remarked that he’d been backed into a corner by being targeted by more than a year of vicious TV ads.

The Conservative ads typically portrayed Dion as bumbling and ineffective, repeatedly showing an image of the party leader shrugging his shoulders.

“It’s up to the people of Canada to say they’re sick of this,” Grenville said, “to say they’re sick of being misled and lied to and having politics driven down into the mud.”

The ads did convince some of those that bothered to vote to change their preference, which is clearly the only thing that matters to Conservatives. That said, the above provides some validation that this government is the LOWEST of the LOW, in terms of ethical conduct, moral integrity and capacity to inspire. You've made the once dirty Liberals, look like the Glad Man.

Abstaining

One of the chief questions, being asked of returning Liberal MP's- are they prepared to endure another period of abstentions? The theory being, a weakened opposition, with no leader and no money, will be forced to dodge and weave to avoid another election. I would argue, that there should be little chance for a repeat of last spring's embarrassing string of abstentions. One simple reason, Canadians will crucify any party that forces us back to the polls within the next year.

Let's not forget, that the Harper strategy of making everything a non-confidence motion came after his government had been in office for some time. The Conservatives could leverage the Liberals, because the minority government was well into any mandate, the prospects of any election were real. The reality is much different now, and the Liberals have the benefit of potential voter wrath as useful counter.

The Liberals need to make the case immediately, that this is a minority government, that must reflect the views of a majority of members to survive. That frame is crucial, on any occasion wherein the Harper government attempts to ram through legislation, without proper input from other parties, the Liberals can argue that voting against translates to the Conservatives forcing an election, because of simple arrogance and bullying. The Liberals are in a weakened state, absolutely no reasonable scenario wherein they welcome another election, which means that as long as they make an honest effort to accommodate, they have the luxury of voting against the government, with little chance of recourse. Canadians recognize the Liberal predicament, should they draw a line in the sand, it will be rightfully characterized as a simple matter of principle, Harper would bear the full weight of plunging the country into another election.

It remains to be seen, but in the coming months, I would argue the onus is on the Harper government to be conciliatory. Should Harper begin to act as though he has a majority, attempting to jam legislation down the weakened Liberals throat, he could well face a surprise, rather than abstaining to avoid, a vote against, with the full knowledge that the government would be held to account. It is in NOBODY'S interest to play games of brinksmanship in the coming months, because in reality, there won't be an election. The party that is perceived to be playing games, acting outside of the minority reality, will pay the price, and in this way a weakened Liberal Party can turn this around to their advantage. Explain in no uncertain terms, right from the onset, that the Liberals are prepared to come to mutual agreements, but should the government present legislation, based on the assumption the Liberals will abstain, they willfully set the stage for an election of their own making.

Crazy Idea?

On one level, it's the height of elitism, decidedly undemocratic, downright unfair. However, the idea floated yesterday, one I've also considered, of simply having the Liberal caucus lock themselves in a room until they come to relative unanimity on the next leader does have merit. A vote, whomever wins, that person is the defacto leader.

One of Dion's biggest challenges, he lacked the institutional support, noteably the endorsement of our caucus. This simple reality hobbled Dion from the onset, and it does speak to some simple, cold facts. As much as we like to think the grassroots have a voice, if a potential leader doesn't enjoy support from the upper echelons of the party, then friction will always exist. Further to that, while we clearly need to change the composition of the party appartus, to better reflect rank and file opinion, no rational person expects any transformation prior to any leadership convention, in fact any efforts will be put on hold, as everyone becomes transfixed with the race.

I agree with Rae, that we "need to get on with it", although I suspect my motivations are quite different. Moving up any convention date, would effectively disallow the possibility of a third candidate emerging, the two established frontrunners would benefit, their teams are in place, they have the organization, a quick race, no problem. A longer timeframe does allow the lesser knowns an opportunity, but I still fail to see anyone emerge beyond Ignatieff or Rae, particularly if they develop a eventual mutual support strategy. That strategy seems entirely logical at this stage, because a move of one to the other, will help heal any wounds, will unify, rather than leave one on the outside of the selection. In other words, unforseen events aside, it's a two horse race, which again brings us back to the caucus.

It is undemocratic to entertain, but then again, we are talking about our democratic representatives, so you could feebly argue that the rank and file has a voice by proxy. Each MP consults with his/her consistency, before reconvening to make a choice between the two. Problematic, those ridings not represented with an MP are shut out.

The only reason I entertain this scenario, we don't have the time or energy, not to mention the resources, to go on another torturous leadership journey- despite the early talk of "civility", experience tells us nothing of the sort, particularly when you have two well established "camps". Maybe it better to short curcuit the whole flawed exercise, and just let the people who will ultimately have to work with the new leader a vote of preference. These are extraordinary times for the Liberal Party, and anything that avoids WASTING months, so that we can get to the real and MASSIVE problems, has some appeal. Crazy idea, or shrewd understanding of the circumstance?

Things To Consider

We'll have to wait and see how all the jockeying shakes out, but I think it important to view the looming race in a strategic sense, rather than personal want. Here are a few considerations that will be key in my view, when deciding who to support:

Quebec

As Hebert points out, there is a "vacuum" in Quebec, due to Harper's failure, the NDP's inability to breakthrough in any meaningful way. The Liberal Party now has the opportunity to move beyond the sponsorship stench and re-engage the Quebec electorate. As far as I'm concerned, Ontario will never be the electoral monolith for the Liberals again, the advantage of a divided or unpopular right evaporated, if we are too hold power again, then Quebec will be key. When perusing the various contenders, the person best equipped to possibly succeed in Quebec should be given priority.

Fundraising

Whichever contender demonstrates the capacity to raise money, without relying solely on loans, should be given due respect. A leadership race isn't viewed in isolation, those best able to mobilize supporters to give show that they have the capacity to inspire and motivate, a trait which will continue after a leader is chosen. Given the new rules, where the money moves is indicative of something beyond elitist tendencies, you need the grassroots to bankroll.

Political Spectrum

Much debate about whether we should move to the center, stay the same, or gravitate farther left, which point on the spectrum is best suited to maximize and harvest voters. This will be a personal decision for many, but my litmus test will be a leader that provides enough of a contrast with Harper to be a true philosophical alternative, but has the capacity to still be attractive to the center, they don't call it that for nothing.

The Economy

We are heading for a sustained downturn, even if the next election is three years away, it is entirely conceivable that our economy will still be challenged, our fiscal house more of an issue than this election. Baggage on the economy is important here, our leader must be credible and forward thinking. I assume the economy, how we move Canada forward within the global reality, will be the key issue in the next election, so we should consider that, and which regions we can find economic appeal. You do the math on that one.

Sales

Who has the moxy, who has the eloquence, who has the common touch. Someone that highlights Harper's lack of charisma. One thing this election reinforced again, it's a game of superficial attributes, who has soundbite appeal, who can articulate in a concise and direct manner.

Dion Announcement Open Thread

Thoughts?

Outside The Beltway

The mainstream media has made up it's mind, when really if any collective should be "soul searching", it's them because journalism is DEAD in Canada (get your own obnoxious, pontificating, fickle house in order, because it's a pig sty let me tell you). The fellow that made Liberals cringe during the last leadership race, the guy who should have dropped out if he had any scruples, the guy we all patiently waited to get off the stage in Montreal, so the embarrassment wouldn't linger, has weighed in (thank-you pariah, much appreciated). All those brave anonymous sources have weighed in, but the rank and file of the party not so much.

This is a complicated circumstance, and you entertain all possibilities, as you try to think through just what happened, and what needs to happen, moving forward. What I find stunning, the swift verdicts, the fence sitting, the whispers, the conclusive judgements, all in the span of two days.

Newsflash power hungry Liberals, Dion, or more rightly the perception of Dion, is a symptom not the cause. Maybe if Dion inherited a party that hadn't relied on fat cats, instead of PEOPLE, to fill the coffers, he could have countered the early onslaught of attacks. But no, Dion was powerless, because our party was shooting blanks, a victim of structural impotence. Nobody disputes that, so let's not do convenient historical revisions now, when it suits your fancy.

Do Canadians think more of Dion now than prior to this election? Fair to say the former, even the punditry class gives Dion some due for his performance, particularly from the debates onward. Hmmm, this was his first campaign wasn't it? Duceppe has campaigned for a generation, Harper's third, Layton has been on the stump before he could grow facial hair. The question then becomes, and this is the CRITICAL point- did Stephane Dion demonstrate a capacity to grow, did he improve over time, did he season? Yes, why yes he did, now that I think about it. Isn't that how new leaders are normally judged?

The Liberal Party has some problems, but instead of focusing on the obvious, it's "let's kill the leader" and all will be well. Let's invest all our energies in dusting Frank McKenna off, for a boring run that reeks of yester year, he can save us (I hear he has the itch, go get a yardstick then, we don't have time for ego driven, I need something to do cures). Nothing says victory like Bob Rae in Ontario, in the midst of a protracted economic slowdown? Ignatieff, oh yes, he ran such a great campaign for the leadership didn't he, that's why NOBODY moved too him in the convention, it was a gaffe fest. I'm not slagging these fine men, just reminding people that what looks like a life line, might just be a mirage, once it becomes reality. It's the quick fix mentality, change the coach and things will improve.

I don't like what I see, in fact it really is souring me on this party, seems like the same mentality I used to view with disdain. Instead of absorbing the root causes, we want to chop down the tree. How can any deep thinking individual have figured this all out, in such short order, it speaks to entrenched DIVIDED loyalties, just waiting to pounce.

I'm not sure what "senior" Liberals think, but take a gander what ordinary Liberals are saying. You know, the people that have the best intentions, not corrupted by a want of power or control, only wanting a better country, as I like to call them REAL Liberals. Oh, what do they know:

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here



Anybody else who feels the same, now is the time to speak up, while Dion still has a pulse:

info@liberal.ca