This is Mark Warner. He was the Conservative candidate for Toronto Centre. He would have been running against Bob Rae. He's now been told that he cannot run. Apparently he occasionally speaks contrary to the Con message. I'm not sure if that is because he disagrees with Michael Coren but if it is, the Con's just made a big mistake. If you aren't familiar with Michael Coren do look him up on You Tube. I'm loathe to call him a loon, because I think it's too tame a term. I think that Coren would love a Theocracy in this country, provided it was Roman Catholic.
This is Brent Barr. He was the Con candidate for Guelph. Apparently he too has been told that he cannot run. Apparently, he didn't make enough gains during the last election. Huh? He brought the con vote from 26% in 2004 to to 30% in 2006, vs the winning Lib @ 38%. (The Lib's were at 45% in 2004).
So, here we have two apparently capable people running for the Con's, yet the powers that be deem them unsuitable.
In Mr. Warner's case, I can only assume he is too "centre" and not right enough from that position to articulate Harper's vision. Toronto Centre people! Do you really think a right of centre individual has a hope in Hades in this riding? Bill Graham's old riding? Idiotic and it remains to be seen who they put in there. If she/he is more right, not a hope. If she/he is more left, laughable. If she/he touts the Party line....perfect, but no sale in this neighbourhood.
As for Mr. Barr, he is quite upset apparently. He's worked to get the Con message out, but it's not good enough I guess. He increased the con profile, but not to Harper's liking. This guy is loyal and devastated.
So who do the Con's want? We don't know yet, but we do know they want an election.
Here's the thing. When the Lib's look at their candidates, it's all "ooohhh, aaahhh...they are in so much trouble, they are resorting to naming candidates" so say the media. When the Con's do it, it's a post script.
When the Con's abstain from a vote, it's mentioned. When the Lib's abstain, it's wall-to wall, front page news. "Party in Disarray", "Mutiny in the Caucus", etc, etc. This has been the narrative since since Martin lost. Do the media seek out Dion supporters? No. Do they choose critic's that have something positive to present to the public on their journalist panels? No. Even that so called bastion of Liberalism, the CBC, has no one who speaks for the Party. Newman, relatively fair is still touting the con lines he's been fed. Mansbridge? Please, he practically giggles as he goes to Chantal Hebert. CTV? Well we all know where they stand.
It's pretty funny to me that the right continue to suggest that the media is "left". It's not people, it simply is not. They trot that line out because it has resonance. It's long been used by the Limbaugh's of the world and it's crept up here. It's absolute fallacy and fantasy, though it's being consumed. Lord Black's perfect dream. (Note how he's retreating and groveling to Canada now. Apparently we're not that bad. LOL)
So, how to get our message out?
I don't at this point have the answer, but we have to get credible people out there who can shoot these theories down on the first take. I know media go for the blood, but that in itself says something. The Con's reduce all to black and white. Perhaps because the media see their words written in that literal context, they are happy to spew from that narrow view. Whatever happened to grey? You know, that place where you actually analyse and seek the under-story?
Does no one exist in this realm anymore? Me thinks not.
Update - Kady O'Malley speaks to the issue here.