End of the Day Wrap-Up

Think the Liberals won this day.  That makes it 2-0.  And oh my, it was so close for Harper, too.  If only Harper hadn’t been contradicted by MacKay on his major policy announcement of the day, I think I would have given it to him.

Disagree?  Bitch about it below!

Finally, does anyone have any information on whether or not the CPC-ML has yet nominated any candidates?  Their website is strangely silent, and they always field the most entertaining cast of characters.

And with that…  I will see you in the morning.

Four debates

Winners: Harper and Layton.  Mostly Harper.  I always get the feeling that Layton’s a bit of a used-car salesman.  But what do I know?  Apparently pudgy, white, upper-middle-class kids aren’t in touch with the common man because, if I recall correctly, Canadians seemed pretty “jiggy” with Layton’s performance during 2004’s debates.

Loser: Martin.  This guy sucks at debating.  No joke.

Biggest losers: The public, who will be really pissed when debate 4 pre-empts Corner Gas on CTV…  or something.

War Room Amateur Hour

Anyone who followed the CPC with any regularity at all during last year’s election campaign should find this news utterly unsurprising: the CPC’s war room is woefully terrible.

Paul Wells has this:

“Jason Kenney held a news conference in which he complained — incorrectly — that Martin speechwriter Scott Feschuk had insulted ethnic minorities. Feschuk had written a humorous note on the Liberal party website referring to ’socially awkward Omni subscribers.’

“Kenney thought Feschuk was talking about viewers of Omni TV, a multicultural channel based in Toronto. In fact, he was actually referring to now-defunct Omni magazine, a science and technology publication long cherished by nerds.”

So, I mean, that’s bad, right? Like, stupidly, and inexcusably bad? It gets worse. Hours after Paul Wells has made fun of this and it had broken in the media, the CPC sends out a press release from the War Room re-iterating Kenney’s stupid claim and asking if the Liberals are going to stand beside it.

There’s only one explanation: CPC staffers have money riding on the outcome and they’re trying to throw the election.

Tailings

• The CP continues is terrible political writing with this opener: “The Ghost of Campaigns Past has returned to haunt Prime Minister Paul Martin as he attempts to put the sponsorship scandal behind him and win back voters in Quebec.” Yes, Jean Chretien has re-started his lawsuit against Gomery.
• The RCMP is going to be investigating rumours about leaks to certain favoured investment-type people in advance of the Finance Minister’s announcement on income trusts.

And, just because I have nothing else to say, CTV’s Election Blog is actually starting to prove worthwhile reading this campaign.  Headlines right now include such gems as: The Battle in Quebec — for Ontario; Where the Leaders Are; and a take on the federal election from Clinton’s speechwriter.

And, the CPC Plan for Prosecution…

The CPC, meanwhile, announced a plan to for some kind of independent, special prosecutor (boy, if I know anything from American politics, it’s that if Harper cigar-bangs an intern – and there have been some cute Conservative interns in the past – and later perjures when asked about it under oath, he is going to really regret this). Here are the key points:

“No longer will the Attorney General face the conflict of deciding matters involving his own Cabinet colleagues or his own party.”said Mr. Harper.

Details of the plan includes the following:

• The Director will be an independent, qualified prosecutor chosen in consultation with other parties in Parliament;
• The office of the Director will be responsible for all federal prosecutions;
• Once the RCMP investigates findings of the Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner or other officers of Parliament, it will be the impartial Director who decides on prosecution;
• To ensure complete transparency, the only way for the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General to overrule the Director would be by means of a public written notice.

Liberal Plan for Prosperity

The Liberals announced their “Plan for Prosperity” this morning. From the press release:

In order to meet our goal of ensuring that Canadians enjoy a quality of life that is second to none, the Plan proposes action in four key areas.

• Creating Opportunities for All Canadians: In order to fully participate in the 21st century economy, we must ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to acquire the skills, training and education they need.
• Advancing an Innovative Economy: Canada must create a leading-edge economy that creates and adopts new technologies within a framework of environmental sustainability.
• Positioning Canada at the Centre of Global Commerce and Networks: Canada is a trading nation and we must adapt to changes in the global marketplace, including the rapid growth of India, China and Brazil.
• Building the Right Investment Environment: The best way for government to support jobs, growth and prosperity is to create the right conditions for private investment and innovation.

The Plan sets out a medium-term plan for the Canadian economy. It cannot be achieved in one year or one budget, but the dramatic turnaround in our economy over the last decade proves that it can be achieved, to the benefit of all Canadians.

I don’t know what any of this means, but man does it sound chock-full of substance!

Oh, Bourque…

What would we do without you?

A candidacy in shambles. It wasn’t meant to be this way for the self-styled saviour of Canada. Michael Ignatieff, the 30-years-abroad egghead who’s Harvard-based perch was thought by acolytes to be the perfect springboard for a thinly-veiled assault on the Prime Minister’s Office, all conveniently dollied-up as the second coming of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Now, however, his undemocratic drop-in “acclamation” is being rebuffed in Etobicoke-Lakeshore as determined local Liberals, including the president of the Toronto branch of the Ukrainian Congress, move forward with their own nomination meeting tonight. Indeed, the Liberal riding association has now indicated that Ignatieff is not even a member in good standing. So much for the concept of democracy, eh Mr. Ignatief ? This growing nightmare can only find one logical outcome, insiders say. Ignatieff will have to step aside. Worse, senior Liberals in Toronto, Bourque has learned, are readying a game plan that will allow the egghead to step aside in favour of devoting more time to his students, lest the growing unrest surrounding his imposed candidacy split the Liberal vote in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. A little egg on the Great Ego’s face, after all, might be the perfect reminder to him that democracy has a process and it must be followed. UPDATE: After Bourque divulged Ignatieff’s grave difficulties, his appearance on a TV panel this morning was cancelled. Developing.

I’m sure Bourque won’t mind me pasting the whole thing here for posterity’s sake seeing as how, well, there’s not much permanency to these blurbs of his.

Today’s Front Pages

Looks like yesterday’s issue was same-sex marriage.

Broadsheets are so pretty.

Harper on SSM

Stephen Harper was on Mike Duffy Live over on CTV tonight. Of course, the topic was Harper’s statements about same-sex marriage.

What’s the plan? A Conservative government will introduce a motion asking whether the House is interested in changing the definition of marriage. If the motion is defeated, there will be no further action. The law will not be retroactive.

What about the notwithstanding clause? Mike Duffy said something like, “Well, you’ll have to use the notwithstanding clause because of the Supreme Court ruling on the issue.”

Warning… Rambling Aside: Fuck. I don’t care what you think about same-sex marriage. Can we at least, for the sake of having a real debate about the need to use s. 33 to halt same-sex marriage, get on the same fucking page? Mike Duffy and all these ham-fisted CP reporters can read, but apparently they choose not to: GO READ THE STUPID REFERENCE. The reference does NOT rule that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. And so when lazy fucks like our buddy O’Hanlon (who is, incidentally, the freaking Ottawa News Editor) say things like, “But [Harper] didn’t explain how he would ban same-sex unions, given that the Supreme Court has indicated the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional,” they are being disingenuous or retarded or both. The Supreme Court held that:

1. The definition of marriage can only be legislated by Parliament.
2. Same-sex marriage is consistent with the Charter.
3. The freedom of religion guarantee in the Charter is (probably) broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the State to perform same-sex marriages with which they disagree.
4. As for question 4, regarding the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage: and I quote, “it would be unwise and inappropriate to answer the question.”

Yes, cases in some provinces have ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Yes, if Harper re-legislates the traditional definition of marriage, he will have some kind of trouble with these prior provincial rulings. But let us stop implying that the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage has been resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada or that the ability to stop same-sex marriage in provinces whose provincial courts haven’t yet weighed in on the issue isn’t available to Mr. Harper without invoking s. 33.

We are all educated adults. We can, at the very least, frame the scope of the issue before us properly, no?

- Rant Off -

Harper brushed him off and, correctly, stated that Duffy is full of shit about what the SCC said. Duffy quickly changed topics.
Why introduce it today? Harper said, “I was asked; and it’s no surprise. This has been our policy for some time.”

Duffy wrapped up by promising to stop beating a dead horse trying to discover the strategic value of the decision to talk about same-sex marriage on the first day of the campaign.

And that’s it.

Update later: By the way, can anyone tell me WHY he came out with this right away instead of ignoring the question (if it was a question that was actually put to him?)  Where’s the upside?

I see that the front page of the Liberal website is already all over his ass on this.  Not particularly surprising either.

I guess it is a 56 day campaign.  That Charter graphic might get a little old by day 30?  Maybe?

Anyways, I think the Liberals come out on top in Day 1.

The ironman retires…

It appears Gurmant Grewal (Newton–North Delta, BC) will not be seeking re-election (link).

He cites the opposing campaigns planning on using the whole conversation-recording fiasco against him, and his party as a whole. Kudos for putting party above self. This would have been a hell of a lot easier, Gurmant, had you not waited to fork over the tapes.

Fortunately, his wife Nina will continue the Grewal legacy in her re-election attempt in Fleetwod–Port Kells.

The stupidest article of the campaign so far…

Martin O’Hanlon of the CP is the front-runner for stupidest waste of ink penned thus far in the campaign:

Round One of the federal election campaign is taking on the flavour of a political wrestling match pitting the Opposition Ogre against the Government of Graft. Mere minutes after announcing a Jan. 23 election, Prime Minister Paul Martin went after his opponents Tuesday with turnbuckle tenacity, setting the tone for what promises to be a no-holds-barred marathon matchup.

The main effect of this wrestling-imagery-filled opener was making feel an irresistible urge to dropkick O’Hanlon in the head.

Have anything worse?  As always, email tips to: federal.election -at- gmail.com

Oh, and about that 56 day campaign…

From the CP:

Martin said Canadians will need the extra time to “debate the national issues and to absorb and to hear what the leaders” have to say about them.Liberals believe a longer campaign offers at least two strategic advantages.

They think it allows additional time for more militant right-wing Conservatives to torpedo their own campaign with inflammatory remarks on subjects such as gay rights and abortion.

Liberals also believe their boss is a better campaigner than Harper.

For Liberals, issue No. 1 in this campaign will be the strong economy. They believe low unemployment, low interest rates, and sound federal balance sheets are a counter-argument to the suggestion it’s time to change the government.

They also hope to turn the Charter of Rights into a campaign issue again. Harper helped them on that score when he voluntarily waded into the same-sex marriage debate Tuesday.

Without any prompting, Harper reiterated his willingness to hold a free vote on overturning the government’s landmark same-sex legislation. The Liberals quickly pointed out that such a willingness also means Harper could become the first prime minister ever to use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to override legally declared personal rights.

This one’s going to be a keeper, folks.

Harper’s biggest mis-step of the campaign will not have been mentioning the free-vote on same-sex marriage unless he refuses to deal with the issue of s. 33 head-on.  My money’s on the fact that he will.  So, once again, we’ll have one leader insisting that s. 33 will have to be used, but not really explaining why; and we’ll have another leader insisting that s. 33 will not have to be used, but not really explaining why.  And in the end, the guy saying that s. 33 will have to be used wins that battle because, well, it just sounds more intuitive and, frankly, a little more frightening.
Maybe one day, if you’re all very good, I’ll post a paper that I’ve written on the politics behind the uses and near-uses of s. 33 that have occurred so far  in English Canada.  But only if you’re good, and only if I get a good mark.

Official Liberal Party Blog.

Well, Scott Feschuk is an idiot.

Blogs and political parties aren’t meant for one another.  One is supposed to be unscripted and off the cuff.  Politicians and political parties are not (hence why Scott Feschuk is an idiot).

But, on the flipside, when a political party blog TRIES to have the best of both worlds (a blog, which is trendy, but which is also scripted and plays by the rules), you get shit like the CPC’s C-Dog blog.

Jack

He looks like a fairy; his rhythm is slow and retarded.

I feel like I’m watching a crappy CBC kids’ show.

I think he just used that stupid cliche, “walk the walk, talk the talk.”

Holy crap, he sounds like he’s telling a story to children. The moustache doesn’t make it better.

One sign you’re running a budget campaign? Drinking water from a dixie cup.

“Stand up for real change”

Harper is about to make a statement in the House of Commons foyer. Topic of discussion over on the CBC: will he be the “angry man” he was last time?

The Liberals are, “Lurching from one scandal to another … trying to avoid the people’s verdict.”

He’s using a teleprompter. It’s great to see the Conservative campaign paying attention to detail for once. Not a bad speech. It definitely gives him a softer image, as does the graying hair.

Nothing new here: accountability, taxes, crime, health, child care, pensions, trade/industry, and regionalism are the issues he listed off as areas needing “change.”

He’s unveiling platform points over the coming weeks. Not a bad move if you don’t want your policies stolen.

Short speech, repeated in French. The CBC has a better (i.e. more tolerable) translator.

Press questions:

What is different from 2004? People didn’t vote for you then. What has changed? “The facts are clear.”

Do you love this country? “Canada’s a great country…”

In what way were the Liberals involved in organized crime? “We’ve heard testimony of money laundering, kickbacks, threats and intimidation … that’s the definition of organized crime where I come from.”

Fear campaign you already expect is coming? “Hope beats fear 90% of the time.”

What values will you be personally be defending, aside from honesty? “I talked about conservative values, such as democracy, safety, health care, communities that act with compassion, freedom for families. I think conservative values are true Canadian values … the Liberals are trying to be conservative…”

Too far to the right? “Our campaign will be a campaign where we will present our policies and plans for the future. Certainly, Liberals will be saying things such as that …”

How do you intend to govern with no seats in Quebec? “I intend to win seats in Quebec”