The excerpt below is from a rather lengthy post written by a perplexed and frustrated Green Party member (me).

Help!

I just have to wonder how often Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, can be misconstrued in the media. Is it a concerted effort by ALL media types deliberately to distort her meaning or is there something about what May is saying which makes her position, at minimum, ambiguous? I mean this question seriously.

A few hours ago, the GPC issued yet another press release about May’s stance on strategic voting. I’ve lost count of how many there have been.

There’s an excellent money-for-dummies article out today, written by an Associated Press writer, which explains a basic economic fundamental in plain terms. Once you understand that basic principle and begin extrapolating from it, you soon realize the broader implications for “ordinary Canadians” of Stephen Harper’s “great buying opportunities.”

Depuis hier DemocraticSPACE prévoit sept Bloquistes sur 7 pour le “nord du Québec”. Surprenant. Même Lebel de Roberval, le dernier qui semblait solide, prend le bord.

J’ai pas l’impression que Jean-Pierre Blackburn ne va pouvoir s’en remettre lui non-plus, même avec sa promesse de 1 000 jobs et plus dans une prison futur à Larouche, même avec un beau gymnase tout neuf et tout aussi futur pour le Cégep de Jonquière, annoncé en grande pompe, hier en mettant de côté les “partenaires” péquistes et syndicales. Chantale est encore à une majorité absolue de plus de 50%, bien au delà de la marge d’erreur.

Trop de tout au local, je crois. Et pas assez de ce qui compte au nationale! On dirait que c’est la campagne fédérale du Parti Conservateur, qui les avaient porté au pouvoir il y a deux ans et qui est en train de les renvoyer à la maison. Que d’erreurs du point de vue du Saguenay et du Québec. C’est ce que les analystes disent dans la région depuis quelques jours. Entendu à la piscine du Cégep par un non spécialiste en science politique:”ça me fait de la peine pour monsieur Blackburn que je respecte, mais son chef ne l’a vraiment pas”.

It was a pleasure, I’ll confess, to wake up this morning to the flensing of Mike Duffy for his disgraceful, boorish, unethical behaviour last night. And it was a relief to see that one solid Canadian value–fairness–is still so vigorously in effect.

In a way, the treatment of Stephane Dion by CTV sums up the election campaign as a whole: its peculiar nastiness, a rotten import from the south that the Tories, since the day they mocked Jean Chretien’s facial disfigurement, still imagine will play well up here. And maybe in little jerkwater hamlets like Delisle it does, but not among civil Canadians.

The Conservatives are all over this soft lob from Duffy, of course. Earth to the CPC: we aren’t buying it. Decency still counts for something, even during an election campaign. Dion is starting to look positively magisterial compared to the cold-eyed autocrat you want us to support for his “leadership” qualities. The awkward, gangling, nerdy fellow from Quebec might even have a shot at being the next Prime Minister. And this, despite the last-ditch smarmy interventions of oh-so-wise journalistic talking heads whose corporate groupthink has helped to paralyze the body politic for decades.

What a desperate, contemptible move by a party whose fortunes have waned so rapidly over the past few days. And don’t blame all of the latter on the incredible shrinking economy. Canadians are rightly worried: indeed, in the words of one financial commentator today, “Even panic is starting to look like a realistic response.” But in such times we want reassurance–not bizarre suggestions that we spend money on stock bargains. We are looking for a sympathetic connection and a comprehensible plan.

Instead, when a man is asked an ambiguous question that would pose a challenge to most of us even in our first language, we’re treated to petty, slimy personal insults. If Dion in now in sight of a minority victory, this shameful little episode might just push him past the finish line. And if that happens, while I shall never vote Liberal in my life, I’ll be cheering.

Andrew Krystal, perhaps the most straightforward talk-radio host in Atlantic Canada, spent this morning taking Steve Murphy and the ATV newsroom to task for their airing of Stephane Dion’s fumbling of an economic question during a taped interview.

Krystal’s criticism? That leaders fumble all the time in interviews, and many reporters (keen to have lucid answers) will give the politician the chance to call a mulligan. Harper himself had to use a mulligan when conducting an interview with Krystal over Iraq a few years back – because the interview was taped, the talk radio gave the conservative leader a chance to do a do-over.

Murphy gave Dion this chance, but then decided that having a leader stumble over the verb tense in a single question was more news-worthy than having a lucid discussion on economic matters. This shows either poor news judgement on Murphy’s part, or an implicit conservative bias (in his memoirs, Murphy regales in telling the reader how hard he was on John Turner during the 1988 election campaign).

Let’s be clear. Dion’s fumble is in no way an indication of his ability to handle the current economic crisis. This was not at all like Sarah Palin’s incomprehension over the Bush doctrine, or suggestions that close proximity to Russia made here an expert in Foreign Policy. It was a linguistic fumble, and offered no glimpse as to the Liberal leader’s economic thinking. Perhaps Dion would have satisfied Murphy if he took a page from Harper’s playbook and simply stated, “If I were Prime Minister today, I would tell all Canadians to buy Nortel. It’s a bargain!”

Alas, Dion didn’t choose to play stockpicker. And in turn, the ATV newsroom didn’t choose to be impartial.

As the Conservative ship is listing badly and taking on water, few will shed a tear other than the tears of frustration we’re now seeing on the anxious faces of the party faithful. Captain Harper, navigating between sea-monsters–on one side, the so-con Scylla, on the other, the latte-sipping, artsy-fartsy, vaguely treasonous Charybdis–has finally fetched up on the shoals of the economy.

His was a missed opportunity of historic proportions. Under our antique and undemocratic electoral system, the Cons only had to corral 40% or so of the votes of those who bothered to turn up at the polls (maybe a quarter of the electorate), to rule unimpeded for four ghastly years. The goal wouldn’t be easy to achieve, but it was hardly out of reach.

“Strong” (read autocratic) leadership, therefore, almost inevitably became a key issue. There are always people who seek the vicarious thrill of sadopolitics–jailing 14-year-olds, sending troops off to fight foreign wars, poking culture in the eye, sticking it to the CBC, dissing the “liberal” media, bullying and firing bureaucrats, and crushing anyone else who gets in the way. For the Conservatives there is no shortage of targets, as we have seen: it’s been high noon for nearly two years.

And then four things happened.

First, the handlers decided to let the Conservative basement kids loose. The results were some serious gaffes that could have derailed the campaign. The machine was soon back on track, and by itself this difficult start could have been overcome, but it left questions in many people’s minds. Nevertheless, the polls, if not the pollsters,* were looking pretty good, especially in swing ridings (now renamed “battleground riding’s” as our psychological deep integration with the US continues).

At the same time, though, the strategists decided to make Harper kindler and gentler, all blue sweater-vest and proud father. This was, as Citizen columnist Randall Denley pointed out at the time, a serious blunder. Nobody was fooled. His core constituency, in fact, didn’t want a kind, sweet man in charge. And his opponents were not taken in by the palpable insincerity of the new election-ad Stephen.

On the hustings, the real Harper has seemed even more tightly controlled than usual, almost paralyzed. His performance in the leaders debates was extraordinarily poor: he sat there, often speaking in an emotionless monotone, while his strategists hoped the other leaders would overplay their hands–which to some extent, of course, they did. But he suffered for it.

Debates don’t usually decide electoral matters, of course. But crises, on the other hand, test political leaders to the core. There is simply nowhere to hide. Faced with a cataclysmic economic meltdown, Canadians wanted clear, decisive answers, and they also needed a sense of connection.

But Harper failed spectacularly to connect with the public, musing aloud instead about buying up stock bargains. Yes, as he said defensively, keeping one’s head in a crisis in important; but at times like this, people want heart as well. He hasn’t done all that well with the head part, as it happens. But it’s the man’s utter lack of empathy, I think, that has sealed his party’s fate.

One can feel the ground shifting. The Globe and Mail, decrying his lack of leadership on the economy last week, today published a cartoon mocking his aloofness. The Ottawa Citizen went further: its cartoon portrays him as a child begging at the door. His supporters are resigned to another minority government at best–don’t be fooled by the brave rhetoric. They’re flailing mightily, but they know the awful truth.

Margaret Wente gave him a tongue-lashing this morning that would have brought a rhino to its knees. There’s an almost incredulous chorus of shock and disapppointment, and much grumbling and second-guessing, as the man behind the curtain is finally revealed. Even the conservative Economist now refers to his poor leadership on the environment and his “inner oilman.”

The polls indicate another minority government–possibly even a Liberal one. Harper has managed an impossible feat–making Stéphane Dion look good in comparison. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory–because another Conservative minority government is as much a defeat for Harper as a Liberal win–he has dashed the hopes of his party and his constituency. How much longer will he lead it?
_______
* Pollster silliness continues unabated. The CBC suggests that his decline in the polls has ceased, because the latest poll indicates a one-percent increase over the last one. The margin of error is 2.7%!

The Conservative candidate David Anderson in Cypress Hills – Grasslands scuttled an All Candidates forum in Assiniboia, SK after he refused to attend. That’s according to Duane Filson’s campaign office. The Chamber of Commerce in that town had planned to hold a forum during the election, but decided not to have one after only the Conservatives decided to boycott. Anderson also was the one candidate of the four invited to an agricultural forum in Swift Current to not show up during the campaign.

Anderson has not avoided all chances to speak with the public as he was this past week on CKRM 620AM radio with Amber Jones of the Greens, Nettie Wiebe of the NDP, and a Liberal candidate (whose name escapes my memory) discussing strictly agricultural issues. Anderson was not debating against the other parties nominees from Cypress Hills – Grasslands riding in that radio program.

Going into the last week of a campaign, the buzz on the street is always your most important indicator of the outcome. When you work with the media, candidates and their campaigns will try and spin you a hundred different ways. So you need to hang out with real people who aren’t directly tied to campaigns. A good chunk of my weekend was spent talking to other people, from other parents at our kids’ Saturday afternoon activities to folks in the coffee shop to the nice people next to me in the pew Sunday morning.

The buzz is pretty much unanimous: Another Harper minority, another local win for Tony Martin (NDP). My gut feeling agrees with the latter. As one poster’s better half, a fellow parent, put it to me at the Y: “Tony is a safe bet. At least you know what he will do, which is nothing. Nobody is sure about the other [candidates].”

I’m not so sure it won’t be a Harper majority; the late NDP surge – they’re now in a statistical tie with the Liberals – may allow Tories to come up the middle in ridings where they otherwise weren’t competitive.

So barring some major faux pas this week, I’m predicting a Tony Martin win locally and a slim Tory majority nationally.

In speaking with other voters over the weekend, here’s what I found most interesting: They’re still asking the same questions about each candidate that they were asking when the writ was dropped.

Here are the questions:

- What has Tony Martin (NDP) done for this riding?

- Who is Cameron Ross (Conservative)?

- Why is Paul Bichler (Liberal), who has made Southern Ontario his home for the past few years, now running in the Sault?

- Why vote Luke MacMichael (Green), Cory Mcleod (First Nations Peoples Party) or Mike Taffarel (Marxist-Leninist) when their chances of winning are minute?

Note to individual campaigns: You have only a week left, so don’t waste time shooting the messenger. Answer the question for voters. They’re the ones who will decide your fate on October 14, not annoying Internet pundits like me.

Anyway, here are my predicted numbers for the Sault Ste. Marie riding:

1 – Tony Martin – 17,000
2 – Cameron Ross – 14,000
3 – Paul Bichler – 11,000
4 – Luke McMichael – 1,500
5 – Cory Mcleod – 500
6 – Mike Taffarel – 150

How did I arrive at these numbers? That’s easy. I asked my four-year-old, who is much more current in these matters than her old man.

One question that keeps coming up locally is how does Tony Martin keep winning elections when just under two-thirds of local voters opt for other candidates and the popular perception is that he has not delivered anything to this riding. The short answer is as follows: he’s a political care bear. He shows up at opportune times from his cloudy kingdom to tell you he cares.

But here’s a longer explanation. I agree with Mac Headrick, a local NDP columnist with whom I have the pleasure of writing at SooToday.com. You can check out Mac’s columns here. Mac has repeatedly told supporters of other parties to quit whining about Tony’s wins and take an honest look at how Tony wins them.

Saying Tony comes up the middle because the Sault is an NDP riding just doesn’t work any more. At one time, yes, the Sault was a NDP power base. But the local NDP base strength has been eroding now for some years. Need proof? Look no further than the Sault’s MPP, David Orazietti.

A Tory collapse can account for Orazietti’s 2003 provincial win, in which he defeated NDP incumbent Tony Martin. (This would set the stage for Tony to enter the federal race a year later and narrowly win the seat from Liberal incumbent Carmen Provenzano). A similar Tory collapse helped Orazietti retain his seat for the the Liberals in the 2007 Ontario election, but Orazietti also increased his percentage of popular vote in 2007 while driving that of the NDP down by six percentage points, to 26.4 percent. By way of comparison, Tony pulled in 38.9 percent of the vote during the 2006 federal election – a difference of over 12 percentage points from what the provincial NDP candidate, Jeff Arbus, pulled in the 2007 provincial election. And in the raw vote count, Tony doubled Arbus. Polls show Tony pulling in similar numbers this election.

These are Tony votes, not NDP votes. These are people voting for the local candidate and not the party. So why do they vote Tony?

Numerous polls and studies, from different political parties and non-partisan groups, in different geo-political areas, and independent of each other, more-or-less come up with the same results when determining how people vote. It’s something like this:

- 60% – Does the candidate care about me and the community?
- 30% – Policy
- 10% – Other

Like it or not, this is what comes up time and time again. This is the difference between Tony’s numbers and those brought in by Jeff Arbus. It’s Tony’s reputation as “a nice guy, who cares about his constituents.” It’s the little things Tony has done to make himself visible in this community, and behind-the-scenes, like helping the elderly fill out passport applications. He doesn’t bring in any big money to the riding, other popular local politicians cannot rely upon him, but everyone in the riding has a personal story about Tony personally helping some disadvantaged relative maneuvre through governmental red tape.

The perception may or may not be true in real life, but it’s the popular perception. And like it or not, people vote according to their perception.

The same is true about the popular perception about the Sault’s other local politicians who keep getting re-elected by large margins:

- Orazietti: Cares about the community and its future. Look at the money he brings in.

- Councillor Frank Manzo: Cares about the average taxpayer. Only politician to return people’s phone calls. Will help you even when your own councillor is not getting back to you.

- Mayor John Rowswell: Has the personality of grumpy bear being woken up during hibernation, but he cares about this community and its people and is just trying to move us forward. So people take his side when he feuds with local reporters, city administrators, and other local politicians.

For Liberal candidate Paul Bichler or Conservative candidate Cameron Ross to win, each needs to establish himself, as soon as possible during this last week of campaigning, as the candidate who most cares about the Sault and its people. I have no doubt that this is the case in real life, but it needs to be popular perception. When people don’t know enough about a candidate, they don’t know if that candidate cares or not.

Which is why Tony Martin keeps winning.

I got a strange phone call this afternoon, from a local number I didn’t recognize. I picked up the phone and said hello, and a nervous woman’s voice said, “Hello, I’m calling on behalf of Michelle Hunter, the Conservative candidate in the riding of Wascana. Can she count on your vote on October 14th?”

I was a little taken aback, especially since I hadn’t heard the question clearly, so I asked the caller to clarify if Michelle was asking if I’d vote for her. The woman confirmed that’s what she said, so I gave my honest answer.

“No. You cannot count on that, because Mrs. Hunter didn’t even show up to an all candidates forum I attended at the UofR, and when I emailed her to ask why, I never got a reply.”
“Oh. I’ll let her know that,” the apparently startled woman responded. *click* – she hung up.

Two minutes later my phone rang again and it appeared to be the same number phoning back. Good, I thought, a little worked up now that the woman hadn’t even asked for my phone number to confirm they could get back in touch with me should Michelle actually want to respond to my question (yeah, right!). And this was what I heard in response to my next, “Hello?”:
“Hello, I’m calling on behalf of Michelle Hunter, the Conservative candidate in the riding of Wascana. Can she count on your vote on October 14th?”

“I just told you that I would not be voting Conservative because Michelle didn’t even respond to my email. And you have a problem with your phone system because you just phoned here.” “Oh, okay, thanks.” *click*

*sigh*

And I wonder if the supreme irony could be that my phone number ended up on their call list because I’d emailed it to the Conservative campaign office asking them to call it with an answer to where I could hear Michelle speak in public. I’ve spoken with the other 3 parties candidates in Wascana, in public, but have yet to hear Michelle speak for herself. Twice, I’ve had different people speak to me on her behalf.

Last night I attended an all candidates meeting in White Rock.

Attending:

• David Blair (Green) showed up late and nearly missed the opening remarks.  He was well spoken but seemed out of his depth on many non-local issues.  Blair’s personal platform was being anti-”business as usual”.
• Russ Hiebert (Conservative) came off much like his leaflets: Aren’t Harper and the Conservatives great?  He was an excellent speaker although there was a lot of flipping through the “official party position book” (I was able to predict every answer Harper made in the leaders’ debate tonight).  Only Hiebert was consistently able to answer questions before being cut off by the clock.  The other candidates tended to whisper conspiratorially to one another a lot while he was speaking.
• Brian Marlatt (PC) never once broke from his monotone, borderline unintelligible pontifications, and came across as being heavily medicated.  He had a lot to say about the Conservatives being evil Neocon Bush-puppets.  Unfortunately Marlatt very rarely got to the topic at hand before being cut off by the clock.
• Judy Higginbotham (Liberal) got off to a slow start, and had to pause dramatically in order to allow supporters to identify applause lines.  She mentioned the greats of the Liberal Party – Chretien and Trudeau – quite a bit more than I would consider wise in the West.  Higgenbotham was a good speaker, but had a lot of problems with the clock.  At first she just got distracted and trailed out when time ran out, and later ineffectively fought the buzzer on almost every question.  This resulted in her mic being cut off around 10 times in the evening while she yelled as loud as possible with the crowd yelling back “Time’s up!”.  Rather unbecoming.
• Peter Prontzos (NDP) showed up with his tie-dyed daughters in tow, who proceeded to loudly heckle Hiebert.  He echoed the PC sentiment that Harper is an evil Neocon, but with the caveat that the Liberals are almost as bad.  He called them Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum at one point.
  

Health Care
Only Hiebert acknowledged that provinces run health care, and that increased salaries are the only way to get and retain more nurses and doctors.  He also mentioned getting foreign trained doctors re-certified faster.  All the other candidates waxed eloquent about more accessible training for nurses.

Income Trusts
Hiebert took a beating about the change in taxation status, but countered pretty effectively with supportive quotes from Liberals from days gone by.

Safety of the Railway Line Along White Rock’s Shore
Higginbotham: Yes, we are going to move it inland, just as soon as the US agrees to pay for it.
Hiebert: We’ll make it safer as is.
Everyone Else: Of course we’re going to move it!

At this point the moderators actually allowed a question about Clinton’s responsibility for the current US financial crisis.  Marlatt and Prontzos took this as an opportunity to rail on about Neocons and Bush.  If I had realized that the bar for questions was so low I would have submitted some of my own!

Do You Personally Support Same Sex Marriage?
Blair had the most memorable line of the evening here, with “as long as it doesn’t involve me personally”.  Higginbotham’s answer was interesting in that she never directly answered it, instead talking about how not allowing SSM is un-Canadian.

Genetically Modified Organisms
Hiebert was the only candidate against mandatory labeling.

Afghanistan
Prontoz had an eyebrow raising response to this one, advocating that we pull out now, but go back in with the United Nations, and intervene in Darfur as well.

Senate Reform
Much to my surprise, Marlatt actually came out against Senate reform.  Blair really stumbled on this one, falling back on his old standby “more study is needed”.  Higginbotham said something to the effect of “I will be so amazing as your representative that the Senate will be irrelevant”.  I swear to God.

Fixed Election Dates
As the crowd booed Hiebert, a dude with long hair and a crazy beard got up to cheer.  This fellow turned out to be a Whalley street preacher named Brian, who (after the debate) had far more to say about Jesus than I was interested in hearing.  He told me that he was torn between Hiebert (for his leadership qualities) and Blair (for his empathy).

All said and done, Hiebert was the clear winner.  Regardless of whether you liked his policy, he came across as the most calm and informed; even though under constant attack from all the other candidates he remained composed while defusing the most damaging claims.  And his ability to fully communicate his message within the allotted time was very compelling.  Yay for practicing and cheat sheets?

More of Raven’s writings can be found at Fumbled Mumblings.

Shorter Brian McGarry, Conservative candidate in Ottawa-Centre: “Don’t like the arts cuts? Have a baby, li’l lady.”

[H/t Queer Thoughts and Kady O'Malley @7:41:42]

In this election campaign, like no other before it, one thing that has dominated the political discourse is repeated calls by one party for candidates of another to resign over indiscretions in the past, statements or conduct. While some of those events are indeed objectionable and, in some cases, truly offensive, no party should have any business telling an opponent which candidates have to be let go.

Imagine me walking into some corporate head office and demanding that they fire their CEO or one of their secretaries. I’d be squeezed between two brawny security guards and on my way out before I could even finish making my case, no matter how valid my arguments may be.

Here’s how it works – or ought to work: Candidates are chosen by their local riding associations, i.e., members of the respective political party in the area. I should also mention that I am against appointments by party leaders; only the members on the ground, the grassroots, are in any position to make an informed choice about the candidate they want.

If the candidate turns out to be a dud, pervert, anti-Semite, etc., it will be up to all the voters in the riding to kick him or her out on election day. In other words, candidates are hired and fired by the voters, and not because one party leader tells another party leader that Mr. XYZ has to be fired with “no hesitation possible“.

The only thing that the current modus operandi will achieve is that good candidates will be loath to throw their hats in the ring in the future, and that would be a crying shame, seeing how we have a very small pool of able and talented politicians in this country.

The Prairie Wrangler sums it up perfectly:

People screw up and are occasionally idiots, if you don’t like it, just don’t vote for them.

Exactly.

Fidèle à ses habitudes de mauvais communicateur, monsieur Michael Fortier à encore fait preuve de condescendance chez Patrice Roy, à RDI hier soir. En effet, il est juriste. Michael Fortier connaît la justice. Nous, simples citoyens, ne comprenons rien à la justice et aux lois. C’est en gros la nature du propos qu’il a tenu après un peu plus de 4 minutes de « show ». Je le cite : « Pierre Paquette (représentant du Bloc à cette émission) n’est pas avocat, Serge Ménard en est un. Il a un sens et un propos beaucoup plus équilibré ». Il en remet vers 5 minutes et demie en disant que Paquette ne connaît pas l’application de la loi sur les jeunes contrevenants. Si les législateurs « non-avocat » au parlement ne peuvent comprendre la loi, selon Fortier, imaginez ce qu’il pense du citoyen moyen. C’était du grand art de défilement et de l’arrogance crasse. Ais-je besoin de dire que je me suis senti directement visé par les propos de Michael Fortier? Oui, je suis susceptible.

Ce que monsieur Fortier était en train de me dire, moi qui ne suit qu’un simple citoyen ignorant, est qu’il est inutile d’avoir une opinion, ou même une perception quelconque de la loi contre les jeunes contrevenants, le bon gouvernement Harper s’en charge. C’est bizarre, mais monsieur Fortier est en train de créer de la suspicion face à ses intentions réelles. Comment peut-il être capable de promouvoir une nouvelle loi extrémiste pour les crimes violents commis par jeunes de 16 ans, quand à la fois, il explique que les juges peuvent actuellement utiliser une telle clause s’ils le veulent. Il y a un double discours ici. Lorsque que statistiquement, les lois déjà existantes au Québec sont amplement suffisantes et très efficaces face aux jeunes délinquants parce que renforcées par une grande stratégie de prévention et de réhabilitation, je ne peux que constater que Michael Fortier ne travail par pour nous, gens du Québec. En effet, il travail pour les gens de l’ouest droitiste du Canada; ces gens qui n’ont pas encore compris que c’est en passant pas la prévention que diminue le crime chez les jeunes. Et que Fortier ne vienne pas me répéter que ce sont des cas d’exception. Je le sais dèjà.

(more…)

For a few days now, my Facebook update has been  ”Amanda doesn’t particularly want to come to the defense of Duceppe, but is Jason Kenney REALLY allowed to call anyone intolerant?” I haven’t changed it because, well, the irony still shocks me.

 The irony of Jason Kenney calling someone intolerant made me choke on the water I was drinking when I read it. Seriously. This is the same man who assures us that gays have the right to marry, as long as its to someone of the opposite sex. The man who Harper appointed Secretary of State for Multiculturalism just so he could giggle to himself when Jason opened his mouth and comments about “overheated Sikhs” came out. (Why Harper still lets this guy speak and has gagged everyone elese is beyond me.)

 But anywho, that’s enough Kenney bashing for the day. I’m sure there’s already enough of that out there. The point is, that this was up on my Facebook.

 One of those stupid message things just popped up from someone that I attended Forum for Young Canadians with over two years ago (let’s see if he explores the Blogosphere). 

bloc is searching for a story

its an obvious conservative victory

I know this guy is hardcore big-C Conservative, because, well he is, and his dad is (was?) a Conservative MP.  My first thought was, “Holy insecurity, you can’t handle a Facebook bash of arguably your most pathetic Cabinet Minister? Let it go!” But I left that, and was about to write back something a little Bloc bashing, something I’m sure we had some common ground on, “lol” at and move on with our politiked little lives.  And then he wrote this. 

and unfortunately the green party will be left with no seats…

Don’t troll me. We haven’t spoken since Forum and you troll me? You actually are that insecure?

 Whether you think the Greens will win seats or not, the fact is we’re a presence in this campaign and the possibility of us is scaring people. So your trolling doesn’t bother me, because I know that something we’ve done has triggered fear in you. Crazy Greens with their platform that you didn’t bother to read but will assume is full of socialist lies are shaking up the system. They have a voice and it hurts my ears!

Your attacks inspire us. A misquote of Elizabeth May is a mention of Elizabeth May. It’s finally great just to have some attention.

 PS: Need more Jason Kenney bashing? Not quite sure why you should always laugh at the name, “Jason Kenney”?
How about a Maclean’s liveblog? Once you’re there, search for Andrew Coyne’s videoblog on the same press conference. Or how about Rick Mercer’s story of the creation of JasonKenney.org?
They’re both good times.

Nous le savons tous, Harper et sa bande d’inculte ont la culture loin dans leur priorité. Il est même permis de croire, entre autre à cause des récentes coupures en culture, du projet de loi C-10, de la réforme possible de Radio-Canada, qu’ils veulent imposer leur vision « Canadian » de la culture. J’y reviendrai mais cela ouvre les portes toutes grandes à la caricature. Qu’est-ce que la culture « Canadian » au juste? À voir le ROC (Rest of Canada) se gargariser de culture Américaine, ça fait un peu peur. Revenons à nos moutons. Stefen Harper et Josée Verner prétendent que l’électeur moyen est totalement désintéressé du sort des artistes. Avons-nous ce type de citoyen dans Vaudreuil-Soulange? Probablement. Or, quelle sont les principales préoccupations des citoyens de la circonscription? Si l’on se fit au fait que la grande majorité de la population locale est active sur le marché de l’emploi et qu’une bonne proportion doit traverser le pont de L’Île-Aux-Tourtes et le Pont Galipeau chaque matin, il ne serait pas faux de dire que les aléas de la vie familiale, de l’heure de pointe, de la pratique de hockey et des devoirs après le souper prend une place plus qu’importante dans cette communauté. Par contre, sont-ils incultes pour autant?

Permettez-moi d’en douter. Par exemple, il m’est arrivé très souvent de devoir faire la queue pour les films de répertoire présentés dans deux salles pleines à craquer le lundi au cinéma de Dorion. Par ailleurs, la bibliothèque municipale de Vaudreuil est parmi les plus dynamique que j’ai vu depuis longtemps avec ses collections tournantes d’œuvres diverses, ses expositions d’artistes locaux, ses conférences plus que sollicitées, ses soirées de lecture à « guichet fermé » et j’en passe sont une fierté dans le coin. De plus, sans nécessairement être bondé de monde, le musée régional offre aussi des expositions ou l’on favorise les artistes d’ici. Par ailleurs, je peux vous confirmer que ce ne sont pas que têtes blanches qui participent à la vie culturelle de la communauté. La stratégie de Harper est bien simple : frapper sans arrêt sur le clou de l’ignorance du peuple afin de faire croire que les seules préoccupations des gens résident dans le prix de l’essence, le métro-boulot-dodo et dans le bling bling de certains médias. Quelle condescendance et quelle atteinte à l’intelligence de l’électorat. Monsieur Haper joue au père (dictateur) de famille qui impose à ses enfants ses valeurs morale de droite, sa façon de penser ignare, sa suffisance à faire vomir. Cette attitude est très pernicieuse. Effectivement, les gens pour qui la politique n’a aucun intérêt et dont les petits travers les font s’éloigner du seul acte démocratique accessible à cette échelle, leur antenne pourrait capter ce genre de discours. Par contre, je ne crois pas, et ce sans fausse modestie, que les gens du comté goberont ce boniment réducteur. C’est un discours de « mononcle » destiné à une minorité de grosses bedaines assis devant leur télé qui sont de toute façon inflexibles et bien ancrés dans l’immobilisme et les préjugés face aux artistes; le genre qui pense que Céline a la vérité absolue… mais je m’égare un peu ici. Ce ne sont pas ceux-là qui vont voter massivement de toute façon…

(more…)

  Voters in ridings as far away as B.C. and Ontario have apparently been getting flyers signed by our incumbent Peace River MP Chris Warkentin.  Why is our northern Alberta MP spamming voters in other ridings?  According to Garth Turner’s blogsite: “I just received a Conservative flyer…I’m for banning dangerous chemicals from baby bottles, and cracking down on manufacturers and importers of dangerous products…so I don’t object to the message…Anyway, the flyer says ‘compliments of Chris Warkentin, MP’ who is the MP for Peace River….a bit of a distance from Waterloo Region, wouldn’t you say?  Why isn’t it from my local MP?  Oh, I know, my local MP is a Liberal.”    And from the NDP-held B.C. riding of Skeena-Bulkey Valley: “Skeena-Bulkley Valley must be a hot riding…got already 6 pieces of propaganda…Inky Mark, Jay Hill, and Chris Warkentin.”  This is happening all over Canada, and involves many different Conservative MPs. The flyers are known as ten-percenters, due to the fact that federal MPs are allowed to send flyers to any riding in Canada, as long as they are not sent to more than 10 per cent of the households in that riding.   However, it IS taxpayers’ money that is being used to mail out the flyers.  The Conservatives seem to be abusing the privilege of having access to the money to send the flyers as part of a concerted strategy to sway voters in ridings that don’t already have an incumbent Conservative MP. And that may well be against the rules.  The flyers are clearly about the election, since they depict an election ballot with the names of four federal party leaders and an arrow pointing to Prime Minister Harper.  But according to rules distributed to every MP by the office of the Speaker of the House, such flyers may not contain “provincial, municipal or local election campaign material”, and they can’t request “re-election support”. NDP MP Pat Martin launched a complaint about the flyers prior to the election, saying they are “way over the line”. The Liberals have also been complaining. The strategy certainly isn’t winning any prizes from voters in the affected ridings.  A handful of voters in Ontario were upset enough to found a new Facebook group in Warkentin’s name just to complain, and New Brunswick Conservative MP Mike Allen has already had to defend himself to the CBC.   Meanwhile, voters in the Peace should be asking if Warkentin even knows about the flyers.  If he does, then isn’t he taking his own riding for granted and focusing more on swaying other ridings, and possibly breaking election rules to boot?  And if doesn’t, then isn’t the Conservative party being misleading by sending the flyers in his name?   

Like many other voters I am disgusted by political ads which take comments out of context so as to mislead the public/viewer about opponents. But these are politicians, who we know rank just above (or is it below) lawyers in terms of public respect. They are trying to shape voters perceptions and get votes, not be truthful.

Journalism on the other hand is supposed to be about investigating the facts and presenting both sides of a story. It is all about context and getting as close to the truth as possible. In something as important as an election, we need the media to cut through the political spin, otherwise they are just as guilty of manipulation as the politicians.Unfortunately, our Canadian media seems to be failing us in this regard.

The most obvious case of this lack of media scrutiny was the coverage of the statement from Lawrence Cannon’s aide to an Indian band leader.Taken out of context, telling the Indians ”… if you are sobre and behave…” is insulting. In the context of prior incidents in which the police were involved because protesters showed up drunk and made threats, it is perfectly understandable.

And don’t tell me they don’t have the time to do this. Just watch the news on BBC or PBS, or read the Economist. Important stories get the time they need, and are not compressed into 30 second sound bites.

Our democracy depends on a properly functioning media acting responsibly and objectively to hold politicians accountable. If the media wants to become a US style circus where biased coverage is the norm, we will all lose in the end.

I am writing this to explain how in the NDP,  Jack Layton has limited control over who the candidates are. 

Unless one has studied political science, one may be unaware of the differences in the structure of our political parties.  In the Canadian political system, there are two types:  Cadre and Mass. 

In the former, “cadre” the power begins at the top – any leader of a cadre party, or, the group that governs that particular party, has the right to decide in any riding, who the candidate will be.  Hence you will have the effect of “parachuted candidates”, sometimes getting the nomination to run during an election over a party member who is popular among the constituents of that riding.  The Conservatives and the Liberals are both “cadre parties”.

In “mass” parties, it is the opposite:  power begins at the bottom, at the grassroots level.  The party members in each riding have an open, democratic vote as to who the candidate will be and there cannot be ‘parachuted candidates’, against the wishes of the party members.   The NDP and the Green Party are ‘massed-based’ parties.  Potential election candidates can be screened before a vote at the constituency level, but if the candidate wins a vote by their riding association, they become the candidate and that is that…

The NDP have lost a few candidates in this campaign, because this is the way candidates are chosen.  It is a shame that some candidates who decide to run, in ridings where they are respected, knowing that if they manage to make it to the campaign, their personal views on such things as marijuana laws could set off a crisis within the party they are running for because of their personal views.  But I personnally applaud those who run, even if they are eventually forced to resign because the media finds some issues “scandalous” and unworthy of an audience.  I believe it is the right of citizens to run in an election to educate the public and reform things that may be needing reform.

But in a democracy, there should be an open forum and the will of the electorate to decide who to vote for,  and for what reasons, should be left up to those in the riding level, especially in a mass party.

Article removed at author’s request.

Paul Fréchette, the Conservative candidate in Hull-Aylmer, made a fool of himself this week by saying that the Conservative government would take measures to protect Canada’s food supply against poisoning from Al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups.

Aside from saving you from Osama Bin Ladin wrath, his main proposal is to bring an additional 6000 government jobs in Hull, but he is not inclined to explain how this will be accomplished (for more on this topic, read We want Jobs! Or do we?).

He also apparently only answers questions relating to the record and priorities of the Conservative government.  In an interview with a journalist from Radio-Canada, when asked who he though his main opponent was, he replied “I think our time is up and your question is not related to the topics we had agreed upon” and cut short the discussion.

If elected (which is begining to look more and more doubtful), he’ll certainly fit right in with the rest of the Conservative caucus with this kind of approach to the media.