Monday, April 17, 2006

Easter Reading

For anyone looking to kill some time...

-Via Cherniak, I found this pretty funny. Hopefully Gerard's launch won't feature "we're going to St. John's, then we're going to St. John, then we're going to Victoria, then we're going to Red Deer, then we're going to Moose Jaw, then we're going to take back Ottawa - Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!!!"

-Inkless Wells may have gone dormant, but Paul's latest Maclean's piece is up. It talks about the tag team efforts to destroy the Liberals, but also features this fun tid-bit:

At one point Chuck Strahl, the agriculture minister, joked that thousands of farmers protesting outside had every right to expect action from a Conservative government "because they certainly didn't get any from the last government." Strahl's colleagues gave him a standing ovation. Emerson joined the ovation. Basically Emerson was applauding the assertion that he belonged to a do-nothing government. Later he professed to "shake my head at the hypocrisy" of another MP. He will provide barrels of fun for a long time to come.

-The Hill Times has an article on federal MPs who might jump to the provincial PCs if Preston Manning runs. For what it's worth, I think Manning should run provincially. He'd actually bring some substance to the race and would make Paul Martin wannabe Jim Dinning work for it.

-The Globe has the run-down on the campaign launch dates. I'd say we're looking at a group of ten candidates consisting of: Ignatieff, Kennedy, Dion, Dryden, Rae, Brison, Bennett, Findlay, Volpe, and Bevilacqua (Maybe toss in Hedy Fry and/or Denis Coderre too). For all the talk about the "big names" opting out, I think that's a pretty solid field.

-Oh, and this is almost a week old, but Rick Mercer in bed with the Liberal leadership!


  • Paul Wells just keeps getting better and better.

    I just wish some of the tall foreheads that make up the Liberal elite would pay him a little more attention because he is the best person in Canada right now in pointing out our parties failures.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:21 p.m.  

  • Hey, what you lack in quality you certainly make up in quantity

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:27 p.m.  

  • Given the fact that the next LIberal leader is probably never going to become Prime Minister and will likely lose the next two elections. I recommend to Liberals that they choose someone who is a good organizer who can build a base for the 2015 election. Sure, the Libs may be competitive in the 2011 election, but I still think Harper will also win the 2011 election as well as his majority in 2007.

    This also means that candidates who are my age (I'm the same age as Bill Clinton) need not apply. This means bye-bye to Rae, Iggy and others. I don't think G Kennedy is a good choice since he moves the Libs too far to the left, but at least he's the right age.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:17 p.m.  

  • The same guy who nobody was picking to win only 6 months ago is now a political powerhouse that can't be stopped until 2015?

    By Blogger rob, at 2:21 p.m.  

  • "For all the talk about the "big names" opting out, I think that's a pretty solid field."

    In the current crop of candidates,there is no alpha male,no street fighter,no back slapping partisan hack. Mulroney and Chretien were these things, McKenna and Tobin would have been.
    Pretending Kennedy or Ignatieff have what it takes to be PM is a delusion of the Central Canadian chattering classes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:33 p.m.  

  • Two Cents,
    You may be suffering from the new Conservative dysfunction called PPE (Premature Political Ejaculation). As anyone who has followed politics for any length of time can attest to - political landscapes can "change overnight". We all know that it is sometimes fun to speculate about the future and we are all guilty of getting "carried away" from time to time, but for anyone from any poltical stripe to claim to be able to predict with certainty the outcome of an election a year or two in advance (or two elections in advance in your case) seems very silly - even to a simple minded individual such as myself (unless of course the person doing the "psychic projectioning" is just trying to "stir up controversy" in the "other team's dressing room").

    By Blogger JD, at 3:16 p.m.  

  • You know, I normally wouldn't say it out loud, but to be honest - I sometimes have the same feeling that Two Cents has. (Wow, I feel like I'm talking about a Batman villain here)

    Certainly wouldn't lay money, but I tells ya, I look around and do wonder sometimes if Harper isn't going to win two majorities.

    But hey, we'll see - and I wouldn't gamble a pizza order on it or anything.

    I'm very very very excited at the possibility of Preston Manning running for AB Tory leadership, by the way - I very much hope he runs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:50 p.m.  

  • JD,

    I agree. Except I have an uncanny ability to pick the right Chinese government.

    Next decade belongs to the communists.

    you heard it hear first.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 3:53 p.m.  

  • ps.

    two cents makes a fair point. perhaps, the only people who bought the demonizing of Harper, are the people who concocted said demonization.

    perhaps, the slurs and smears act like blinders.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 3:54 p.m.  

  • "Paul Wells just keeps getting better and better.."

    Since he is just a sad-sack little twerp, he has a long way to go. Is there a national pundit in this country with an actual brain? Someone who can do better than throw out a few quips and soundbites?

    The best bit about loser Wells was the Rick Mercer campaign episode where he joined the Harper plane for a few stops. Once, when boarding the jet, he went down the aisle identiying various reporters. When he got to Wells, the chump tried to crawl under the seat. God help us from these "experts".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:55 p.m.  

  • Interesting - what's wrong with Paul Wells in your opinion?

    I have to admit - I'm ready to have a sex-change so I can bear his children.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:12 p.m.  

  • ^

    I wonder which bitter former National Post manager that "annoymous" is?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:12 p.m.  

  • Through some diligent digging and decrypting, here is an old post dated 1991 (hmm, only tories had blogs back then?) from the Tory hack currently known as 'Two Cents' but then under the guise of 'Six Cents' (I guess inflation doesn't hurt, afterall!)...

    "Don't you LIberals learn? All this smearing and speculation -- not even picking 'Mr. Heart' JC to replace the Ted Knight of leaders JT can save you from another decade of opposition -- about my faithful leader BM cannot alter your fate. I still think Mulroney will hang on for another election, then pass the reins to Ray-H or Dalton and slap your silly souls into perpetual opposition! I recommend you prepare for a long hibernation. Us Tories never forget! You don't stand a chance. And Tears For Fears rocks!"

    nuff said.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:01 p.m.  

  • Dear Two Cents

    You are a dumb ass.

    How do you know what is going to happen in the next election, let alone the next two elections?

    The conservatives win a MINORITY government and you think that means they can win the next two election.

    Let me guess, you seen a poll? Do you know what a honeymoon is?

    Just incase you don't remember what happened in the last election. The conservatives BARELY beat a scandal plagued liberal government.

    Before that, just in case you don't remember, Paul Martin was projected to win 200+ seats.

    2015? Why don't we just not have elections till then, save us some money, eh?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:46 p.m.  

  • reality check,

    it will definitely go worse for a party that describes itself as "scandal-plagued" on the way to arrogantly belittling the electoral victory for a new, different government.

    that's just a guess.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:03 p.m.  

  • looking up reality checks sleeve,

    You write: "it will definitely go worse..." - Are Con trolls now relying on palm reading and psychics? One thing that is definite about politics is that nothing is definite about politics. IMHO some Conservatives seem to want to illustrate how naive they are about the world of politics. To serious speculate about the potential outcome of future elections is utterly ridiculous.

    By Blogger JD, at 8:51 p.m.  

  • I have written an open letter to the national executive over on my blog. I watched Mike Duffy's show tonight and just couldn't believe the lack of message the Liberal talking heads give out. Whether it be Duffy's, Newmans, or Global's news programs, each talking head says something different. We need a clear message to give out to the media of CURRENT Liberal reactions and plans in government. There's more to our party than a leadership race!

    By Blogger Forward Looking Canadian, at 8:53 p.m.  

  • "Interesting - what's wrong with Paul Wells in your opinion? "

    Same thing that's wrong with damn near every national columnist in the country. A bunch of lazy meme-repeating dolts who lack any interest in real analysis. Wells is among the worst of the bunch. They write columns not to provide information but to throw a few bon mots for the gullible.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:12 p.m.  

  • The guy who said I was just trying to stir things up a bit was pretty close to the truth.

    Of course I don't know what's going to happen in the next election. Let alone the one after that.

    That being said, I still think that it is wise to devise some realistic scenarios that could happen. The fact is that only diehard Liberals seem to believe that "the universe will right itself" within the next year and that it is a certainty that Stephen Harper will be turfed.

    Most of the rest of us expect that the Liberals will have trouble getting their act together while the rest of the country gets used to the idea of a Harper-led government.

    Let's do the numbers. Until and unless Harper completely self destructs, he has a pretty good base on the Prairies, in rural Ontario and in Quebec (yes, Virginia, the Liberals are dead for a decade in Quebec). He slipped a bit in BC, but stil has a fair base there. The Emerson thing will only hurt him in ridings that were already out of reach. As for the GTA, if Harper produces credible government, it is within credibility that he can pick up a few seats if only in the 905 region, especially, as seems likely, the Liberals opt for a "unite the left" leader. Likewise, the existing Atlantic seats seem safe for the CPC even if growth is hard to read.

    I'm not predicting that the CPC will definitely will win 2007 election (or 2008?) or the 2011 (or whenever it comes) election but I was recommending to you Liberals that you at least take into account the possibility that Harper might win. That's why I think Liberals should choose a leader either young enough to last through the dry period or with the organizational savvy to rebuild the party. Hey, Liberals don't have to take my advice. I'm happy if they want to remain in the wilderness for many years.

    That's why although I find G Kennedy too far to the extreme left for my taste, at least I agree with CG that he's from the right generation.

    And, yes, I've been a Stephen Harper supporter for a long time. I won some very nice meals in bets I made before the past election. And, no, I'm not making any bets now. It's too early to bet even if it's not too early to consider various scenarios and plan accordingly.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:14 p.m.  

  • GK is not going to have a left platform, that is a stereotype.
    He is likely going for the centre.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:45 p.m.  

  • going for the center? I'm going to hurle.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:56 p.m.  

  • From my vantage point, GK's main platform appears to be "I ran a food bank and love to spend money on education". It may be a stereotype, but most of us in the Harper centre see it as far left.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:00 p.m.  

  • Two cents, perhaps you might want to trade in those pennies for two brain cells?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:03 p.m.  

  • "The Harper Center" Excuse me as I hurl.

    Quite the centrist stand he is taking on environmental policy, delegalizing SSM, childcare...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:09 p.m.  

  • stop acting like traditional marriage is some right wing wacko position. as far as I can tell there are less than 5 countries in the world that have legalized SSM.

    Oh yeah Harper is a right wing facist because he doesn't want to create a massive institutional child care burocracy and has a SSM policy in line with 99% of the rest of the countires in the world......

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:20 p.m.  

  • I'm not predicting that the CPC will definitely will win 2007 election (or 2008?) or the 2011 (or whenever it comes) election but I was recommending to you Liberals that you at least take into account the possibility that Harper might win.

    I don't think anyone is ruling that out; it's quite possible. I just disagree with people who think the LPC should write off the next election, one that is 1-2 years away and will be fought on issues and circumstances that we have no knowledge of. If we do that, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    By Blogger IslandLiberal, at 10:25 p.m.  

  • anon 8:20 PM

    I think threatening to take away minority rights is a "right wing wacko position."

    Especially considering that people are all ready married, and that SSM doesn't seem to have cause any harm to traditional marriage.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:37 p.m.  

  • It's amazing how conservatives set up straw men like:

    "stop acting like traditional marriage is some right wing wacko position"

    Yet, there wasn't any mention of "traditional marriage" in the post.

    The post concerned taking away the rights of SS couples.

    Any one here leave their spouse because of SSM? As far as I was aware, SSM have had absolutely had no effect on traditional marriage. Expect perhaps making it harder to book a good photographer?

    But I guess in the eyes of "the Harper Center" giving rights to SS couples is attacking "traditional marriage".

    No live and let live for "the Harper Center".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:50 p.m.  

  • earth to left wing fanatics: the traditional definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:41 p.m.  

  • Now, how about answering the real question.

    How does SSM marriage effects any one in a "traditional marriage"?

    Get back to me when you have a real answer.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:37 a.m.  

  • In England the gay community now have the right to a "Civil Partnership". The UK lawmakers did not use the words "marriage" nor "wedding" in its legislation. In Canada the UK model was not followed, however The Liberal Party tabled legislation redefining a long held traditional word "marriage" for no purpose but to divide the Canadian people and perhaps to give the Liberal Party a wedge issue.

    Noting from front page photo's of Elton John union, he doesn't look discriminated against - and if there were any real differences between "Civil Partnership" in the UK and " Marriage in Canada" they would have been "married" in Canada where David Furnish was born.

    Sir Elton John, beloved by all, is a strong advocate of gay rights and I can only assume that he did not see the necessity of advancing gay rights by needlessly trampling over the rights of those that hold to the treasured definition of "marriage".

    Equal rights with different names has long been part of this great country. When the famous five, led by Nellie McClung, petitioned the Privy Council to have "women" recognized as "persons" thus enshrining women's rights as equal to that of men - they didn't want to be called "men" ( nor do we need to redefine "men") - they simply wanted to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. What's wrong with being equal and still relishing in our differences?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:08 a.m.  

  • Canada is not the U.K., and Elton John's facial expression doesn't determine whether or not his rights are being violated, were he Canadian.

    In Canada the courts have been fairly clear: marriage must be equal or rights are being violated. If you wish to blame "left-wing fanatics", blame those that authored the Charter of Rights. Whether they are fanatics or not, however, doesn't affect the constitutionality of laws that violate the Charter one iota.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:21 a.m.  

  • Wait... is someone seriously saying upthread that Harper is against food banks and spending money on education?


    (I've got a cotton gin to run, y'know.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:24 a.m.  

  • Can anyone advise me if there is a site that is listing and updating which MP's have lined up with which Leadership Candidates ?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:56 a.m.  

  • "needlessly trampling over the rights of those that hold to the treasured definition of "marriage". "

    What rights have been trampled?
    What rights did you lose?

    Again, I ask you how is someone who is in a "traditional marriage" effected by a SSM marriage?

    Your refusal to answer confirms that SSM marriage has had no impact on a person in a "traditional marriage".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:45 a.m.  

  • Running a food bank is a lot easier than running a politcal party, let a lone a government,

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:03 a.m.  

  • Belittling someone's charitable work on a blog is even easier.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:11 a.m.  

  • turning the country into one large food bank will take some pretty un-lazy government.

    By Blogger Tarkwell Robotico, at 11:44 a.m.  

  • I didn't know that was part of Gerrard's platform, care to quote a source?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:09 p.m.  

  • Oh dear, I voted for Harper last election, am a homosexual, and support same-sex marriage. I suppose I must be one of those conservative left-wing fanatics.

    I really am a confused lad, aren't I?


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:24 p.m.  

  • French River;

    Wikipedia has a page of endorsements, which has most of the official MP endorsements of candidates:,_2006

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:28 p.m.  

  • Ok so according to some posters here, supporting the traditional definition of marriage is a radical position, is that right?

    Oh, and as far as I know, the SCC never ruled whether traditional marriage violated the charter. I could be wrong though. Does anyone have a link?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:35 p.m.  

  • Again, taking away the rights of just a minority groups a radical position.

    Again, I ask you how is someone who is in a "traditional marriage" effected by a SSM marriage?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:42 p.m.  

  • "taking away the rights of a single minority groups is a radical position."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:45 p.m.  

  • The list of endorsements is interesting. The numbers for each candidate match up with my understanding of their level of support: 1) Iggy 2) Kennedy 3)Dion.

    Anybody else think the support matches the positions of the candidates (or disagree - I'm looking at you Toronto Liberal)?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:47 p.m.  

  • has anyone else noticed that all the brison supporters have now vanished and stopped posting their idiot ideas about how great he would be for the party...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:15 p.m.  

  • Kennedy hasn't declared yet and his actual list of key supporters is larger than that on Wikipedia.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:29 p.m.  

  • i heard kennedy is getting an endorsement from a real kennedy down in Yankeeland.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:50 p.m.  

  • "i heard kennedy is getting an endorsement from a real kennedy down in Yankeeland."

    Yup - Fred Kennedy, the janitor at Tulane Public School has indicated that he will endorse Gerard.

    It blows me away that Gerard, a provincial politician until 13 days ago will start the race with the most current federal caucus support.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:04 p.m.  

  • Maybe it's because alot of MPs can see Kennedy winning the next election?

    This may also be the reason that a lot of conservatives are dissing Kennedy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:14 p.m.  

  • Well actually as far as I can tell myself and most of the other Tory poster are predicting a Tory majority no matter whom the Liberals pick as leader. Some are even so confident as to predict back to back majorities, after all in Stephen we trust. On the other hand the comedic value of a final ballot of Joe Volpe and Bob Rae would be too much for most of us to pass on.

    Anyhow, CG interesting link to the endorsement page. Looks like the liberal god squad is lining up behind Ignatieff, which makes a great deal of sense as his views on foreign policy don't exactly pander to the left wing of the Liberal Party not to mention the party heavy weights. If nothing else the professor is going to have an organization.

    By Blogger Chris, at 7:28 p.m.  

  • I've tried to find some of your detailed thoughts on the reasons for Belinda's decision to drop-out??? If you have any many you could share them with us. Personally, I think she has, calculating, done the right thing, jumping off the lemming train before it takes the winner of this nothing context over the cliff. If Harper plays civilised for this minority term, and he will, he's all but guaranteed a majority next time and that will spell retirement for whoever wins this Liberal poisoned-chalice race!

    General comment: What a superb site. Just came across it for the first time. Keep it up.

    -V Hayes., TorONto

    P.S. can I shamelessly link to my own blog? Cheers bro.

    By Blogger S.J. Valentine, at 7:52 p.m.  

  • Val,
    It appears that you may be suffering from the new Conservative epidemic called PPE (Premature Political Ejaculation). Making predictions about future elections is imbecilic.

    By Blogger JD, at 8:13 p.m.  

  • JD,

    You are of course right to the extent that predicting the outcome of any future event is futile. But a reasoned analysis (which you noticeably fail to provide) has it that the nation, as a whole, is sick to death of the slimy grits. The only serious obstacle to Harpers settling down in 24 Sussex last January was the fear of the far-right-frankenstein that many (esp. here in ON) felt.

    This trepidation, which I shared, has been largley dissapated by Harpers forced recognition of his minority situation, but also his refusal to succomb to right-wing pressure and attempt a crusade launch on any major social issue.

    His first few months in Ottawa have been quiet, almost unseen. He's seen off his bogeyman image and has frightened nobody.

    It adds up to a majority next time round, at least from this vantage point.

    Good luck to the pathetic Grit figure to makes it to the driver-seat of this runaway train to the cliff base. Belinda is a lot smarter than she looks... and acts.

    By Blogger S.J. Valentine, at 8:43 p.m.  

  • Val,
    You're calling a game after the first inning. Who knows what scandals Harper may be involved in? Who knows what the economy will be like in a year or two? Who knows what Afghanistan will be like in a year or so? etc...
    You are making a "hopefull" prediction on insufficient data.
    But hey, whatever gets you through the night!

    By Blogger JD, at 9:02 p.m.  

  • Predicting the outcome of future elections isn't "imbecilic" - it's FUN!! Try it - you'll like it. I do it all the time, actually.

    I do see Harper winning again - but I'm not betting it, and I can always change my mind. It's fun to try and guess what will happen.

    I'm of course not stating an absolute, certain outcome, which is the difference, I guess, between me and the other poster.

    Unlike a lot of people, I don't think Harper is "evil" - he's just a guy, and some of his opinions differ to mine. I think people will realize in the next year or two that Harper is indeed not Satan, and he'll win over enough support to get a bigger government - who knows, maybe a majority.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:47 p.m.  

  • Good point on not knowing what scandals Harper will be in JD. I vote for mid-term sex-change, anyone with me? I mean, it's never happened before - I'm tired of stealing - snore, patronage - dull, bribes - been there. I want estrogen therapy and electrolysis on Parliament Hill this time around. Either that, or a stunning disclosure that Harper left Negative Feedback to a full payer on eBay because their handle was "HarperSucks", referring, ironically, to Eileen Harper of Wichita, for 'stealing' the boyfriend of "HarperSucks".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:21 p.m.  

  • since he moves the Libs too far to the left, but at least he's the right age.

    What? You don't like his political views, but he's the right *age* to become Leader?

    Woe betake us all....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:27 p.m.  

  • Of course it's been "quiet"... Harper hasn't really tried to pass any laws yet!

    So, Val, as long as he doesn't do anything or say anything he'll remain popular? Interesting theory, and goodness knows I'd prefer the Tories are as inactive as possible while the grits are choosing their new leader, but it seems really unlikely.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:51 a.m.  

  • "So, Val, as long as he doesn't do anything or say anything he'll remain popular?"

    Worked for Jean Chretien

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:07 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home