Another Piece of the Interference Puzzle

Do you remember this man? If you're a Conservative and live in Toronto, you might. His name is Mark Warner. He was the candidate nominated to run against Bob Rae in Toronto Centre. That was before the Con's interfered in his campaign and told him that he couldn't run and he was being replaced.

Why? Because he was a person of substance and accomplishment, imo. These qualities are to be discouraged in that party of course, so they unceremoniously bid him farewell.

Today we learn that Mr. Warman will be supporting Bob Rae. He's torn up his Conservative card and is now a member of the Liberal party. He says he saw a pattern with this government and how they interfere in the democratic process. In fact he went further and pointed out that many of the same players seem to be at the centre of every questionable action. In his case, Ian Brodie and Doug Finley.

The contrast between the two party's could not be more stark in my mind. The Con's really are not interested in their candidate's credentials. They care if the candidate will faithfully repeat the party line, period. When is the last time you heard a Con MP say anything discernibly different from one of their colleagues? The Con central command and control is simply not and effective way to govern and that is now being born out.

Do Liberal candidates have to toe the line in such a manner? No. Obviously, overall they have to believe in the Party values, (why would you want to represent a party if you didn't?) but having a difference of opinion on some issues is acceptable.

Mr. Warman seemed to indicate that he would be open to running as a Liberal candidate. I do not know a lot about the man, but based on his bio, I'd say he'd make a pretty good candidate.

The Sound of Teeth Gnashing

Well, it would seem that many Lib-bloggers are expressing their frustration with the current strategy of the Official Opposition.

I understand the frustration and I'd agree that some of what they have done does look bizarre, but I also see an odd irony here. Dion finally gets off the front pages for being a weak leader and he actually has the pundits suggesting that he's showing strength in the House and now some of his supporters have taken over where the MSM left off. I get that the hawks are antsy, but I'm not sure I see the point.

I was thinking back to when Harper was in this same spot. His press was awful.

The stark reality is that Stephen Harper, although he is an intelligent man, simply lacks the leadership skills necessary to form the next government. His lack of these skills became obvious when the February budget was introduced. When the budget was first tabled, Harper quickly said it was a good "conservative budget" and supported it. He and his Tories then announced that they would vote against the budget and try and bring the Martin government down. A couple of days before the vote, Harper again changed his mind and announced that his party would support it. The reason for his last flip flop was that there was pressure from Newfoundland and hints that his Newfoundland members might cause the non confidence vote to be lost. A person with political smarts would have foreseen this and supported the budget all along. The end result of his wavering was that had the Conservatives initially supported the budget that they ultimately voted for, Paul Martin would have had no reason to make a deal with Jack Layton. Harper, as much as Martin, is responsible for the $4.6 billion dollar "NDP budget" that ultimately passed by one vote.

He avoided a budget vote, was forced to sit out one of his own amendments because another party felt they could sign on to it and that would have brought down the government. Why? Because he didn't yet feel he had the conditions to win.

How is that different from Dion's position? You can argue that the Lib's should be ready, but that doesn't address reality does it? The reality is Dion and the Liberals are biding their time, waiting for the mess that Harper wades into daily, to take hold while at the same time expecting those who were entrusted to be campaign ready, accomplish their task. Being short 30 candidates isn't the ideal position to be in to call an election is it?

The scandals, Cadman and NAFTA, that Harper has found himself in have placed him in a different light and the Lib's are exploiting that. lf there are diplomatic grumblings in the States because of the Obama thing, that bodes poorly for Harper. And that seems to be happening. Emerson apparently told a congressman behind closed doors that he'd be willing to renegotiate NAFTA, but that is not what they are saying here is it? That bodes poorly for Harper. There are already grumblings out there for the hypocrisy on the Death Penalty and that too affects his image and how he's risking Canada's image.

This part of the equation is important in my mind. That is changing Canadians perception of Harper. If something that is supposedly so solid begins to show cracks, then people start listening and focusing on the other things. Things like, the McTeague bill getting through, funding cuts, the private members bill that looks like it's setting the law up to reverse pro-choice, the film/tv tax credit censorship, program cuts, income trust betrayal, environment, etc.

Some of these things have taken hold, others have yet to really resonate and if the recent scandals have yet to really resonate, do you really think people are following votes in the House? Will those votes be part of dialogue when we do go to an election? I don't think so.

The other advantage is if Dion and team reveal cracks in Harper's image, he, Dion, introduces himself to Canadians as he truly is, not as he's been portrayed.

Do I think the stand down can go on much longer? No. But I'd like to see the by-elections done with and then push on full steam. Don't get me wrong, I think the stunt they pulled yesterday was bizarre, but for all those who followed that, how many didn't? On the other hand, on a campaign trail the Lib's can say that the NDP and Bloq voted against all of those measures for women.

Is this all opportunistic politics? You bet, but no differently than anyone else plays it. Look, we all want Harper and gang gone, but I want to challenge the Con's when there is a reasonable chance that we can keep him out. I see no benefit in catering to the pressure of the opposition only to be back to square one at the end of it.

BTW - An Ipsos/Canwest poll says that 44% do not believe Harper when he says there was no offer of $1M made to Cadman, 33% say they do believe him, (guess who that is,lol) and 22% haven't yet decided. 66% do not think he should sue Dion. Some of it is sticking.

Passing Strange

In spite of Harper's emphatic denial on Tuesday, we now learn that Ian Brodie, the PM's Chief of Staff leaked confidential information concerning Barack Obama and his position on NAFTA.

From Hansard on Tuesday Harper said this in response to Jack Layton.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian embassy in Washington has already apologized for the leaked information. The government is trying to identify who was responsible for leaking the information to the public; it was not my chief of staff.

and then this,

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the leak of this particular document is not only regrettable as the Canadian embassy in the United States has already said. It is completely unacceptable to this government and we will do our best to find out who did it.

What we are talking about here is a report that somebody in the consulate in Chicago wrote to their superior. There are literally thousands of documents like this written around the world by Canadian officials. It is ridiculous to think that the Prime Minister's Office even ever sees these documents.

Not all that ridiculous, apparently. What is rather odd though, is how this became a story about Obama when it appears that Brodie was speaking about Hillary Clinton. Was his intent really to derail her campaign? I suppose we'll learn more in due time but for the moment, I'm presuming that he was privy to information from both camps.

Meanwhile Sandra Buckler, once again says the ridiculous in an effort to shut this down.

The Prime Minister's communications director, Sandra Buckler, has said that Mr. Brodie "does not recall" discussing the issue.

Brodie doesn't recall discussing one of the biggest political story's to come out of the states...a discussion that happened just last week? Yeah, that's credible.

Well I have the feeling this story will just keep growing. Apparently Ambassador Wilkins has now called it political interference and Kady O'Malley has heard a rumour that a CTV reporter has been fired over this, which as she points out would be bizarre. Unless of course he changed the story to Obama from Clinton, in which case I suppose he could be viewed as trying to slant things. Still though, surely this is a political issue.

One thing that I find really strange though, is that I have seen no coverage of this on CTV. While I didn't see all of Canada AM, I didn't hear it in their newscast nor did I see it in the body of the show. (They did however do a segment on how great the new savings account is that Flaherty announced last week.) Nor can I find anything on their website.

Even though it's apparent to me more often than not that some aspects of that network give this government a pass or worse, not covering this is a pretty blatant step. I can't however see how Duffy can avoid it though. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Update - Jack Layton is apparently going to be on Lou Dobbs tonight. I've also heard that he may be on Larry King. I wonder if he'll do his typical Con/Lib bash?

Awww, Chuck's Out of Luck

Well with all of his bluster and boasting Charles McVety sunk his own ship. Let's call it the 'Puritanical' shall we?

The Liberals, specifically the Senator's, will not allow the clause that was hidden in Bill C-10, to go through.

McVety, by going all over the air waves spreading his inane view on this, has guaranteed that his desire to censor will be thwarted. I love it when the loons speak up. Apparently Harper doesn't have a leash for this guy, but he might consider getting one for Senator Majory LeBreton. She too has been repeating McVety's lines.

Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate, lashed back at Liberal Senator Francis Fox, who was questioning the government's intent regarding the amendment: "If Liberal senators are offended by the fact that we should not be protecting minority groups and child pornographers - that is, if they think we should be giving them free rein - they have every right to address that in the committee and move an amendment. We will then see what happens when it goes back to the House of Commons."

Yeah, that's right Senator. The Liberals are all for tax payers contributing to films that promote child pornography. I honestly do not think this ultra- right morals brigade have any idea of just how ridiculous they sound. Obviously there are rules, not to mention laws that prohibit such nonsense. In fact, she's probably been instrumental is passing some of them but they never do let facts get in the way do they?

Anyway, from the article, what I understand is this. The clause in question was initially inserted to prevent a movie about the Bernardo story being made in Canada. I suppose you can argue the merits of that, but you must also consider the mood of the country at the time.

The bill did not pass and many different versions were written and similarly, rejected. Maril Belanger, the Liberal critic on this file says that in the 2005 version, the Bill did not contain this clause, which tells me that the Con's must have reinserted it.

It seems apparent to me that the new draft wasn't studied well enough by any of the party's, except of course the Con's and I hope this stands as a lesson to all of them.

The good news is, the Con's sleight of hand was caught. The better news is that McVety himself killed it. Next....?

Changing What Canadians Care About and Bragging About It

With the Cadman affair taking up so much space, this story seemed to sneak by.

Tom Flanagan, yes the same guy who apparently met with Cadman, wrote an article crowing about what a genius his ex-boss has been.

He begins with this.

Perhaps the most significant act of the Harper government is being conducted so slowly, steadily, and silently that it has raised barely a whisper of public debate.

Translation: Harper is changing the country while no one is looking.

After three Conservative budgets, the Government of Canada has been made financially incapable of offering costly new social programs or significant tax cuts for the foreseeable future.
Remember the national day-care plan the Liberals talked about when the country was awash in $13-billion annual surpluses? Or the Kelowna treaty to deal with aboriginal poverty?

Those surpluses are now almost gone.

You can almost hear him giggling can't you? He's literally thrilled that he's destroyed the fiscal capacity of this country with the specific intent of making future social spending programs an impossibility.

To launch any big-ticket initiatives over the next few years a prime minister _ whether Harper or a successor _ would either need to risk political suicide or hope for an economic miracle.

That's because raising taxes, returning to a deficit or slashing existing programs could be the only ways to pay for new spending, barring an unexpected economic boom.

His pride is palpable, isn't it? Harper and Flaherty frittered away a $13 billion surplus and are now projecting that surplus will be $1.3 billion by 2010 and Flanagan is on his feet shouting Bravo! He then makes the following bizarre comment.

With only a minority government, says Flanagan, Harper could never have taken the instant slice-and-dice approach of the Mike Harris Tories during Ontario's Common Sense Revolution.

He obviously thinks the way Harris destroyed the province and left it with a $5.2 billion deficit was a good thing. So good in fact that he's thrilled that Harper is slowly but surely accomplishing the same thing across the country.

What is it with these people? I understand of course that their fiscal ideology support what Flanagan is saying, but why is it that they don't recognise the damage they do?

``Harper really didn't have the option of the cataclysmic approach because you can't do that without a majority,'' he said in an interview.

``So he's made the incremental approach work _ all the time having the insecurity of a minority government.

``It's really quite a performance, I think . . . Over a period of a few years they've got all this in place and they never appeared _ at any one point _ they never appeared to be making a radical shift.

``But the cumulative impact of all these together is creating a new profile.''

Not only are the Conservatives boxing in the federal spending power in general, said Flanagan, ``they're also boxing in the Liberals from being able to campaign on expensive promises.''

Cataclysmic approach!? I do believe this is the first time I've ever seen this word used in quite this way. The author seems to attach a positive definition to it.

So there you have it folks. The Con's are on a mission to destroy what this country has become and Flanagan freely admits that it's being done by stealth. His arrogance is staggering really. Writing an article like this takes an incredible amount of gall and is tantamount to thumbing his nose at 66% of the population who do not support the Con view of the world.

That said, it's hard to blame him. After all, the media don't cover this stuff. They are more concerned with unnamed senior Liberal sources who are gunning for Dion and repeating the same story over and over again. Pathetic really.

For more about our small minded, visionless leader, here is the whole article.