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”

“Ambition has overwhelmed common sense”

Martin just exited Rideau. The GG just dissolved Parliament.

He’s blamed the opposition parties. “Most of us do not want the campaign during the holidays” is what CTV’s crappy translator said.

If there’s anything I’m not looking forward to, it’s listening to shitty translators who think they speak English.

Now Martin is trying to tell us about his “record.”

Economy, fairness, social justice. The other leaders “hold very different views on what government should be.” Thank God.

Some press questions:

Negative campaign ads? [hesitation] “…of course I’m going to be pointing out the differences…”

Christmas break? “I’ve been told by a high authority here that I’m taking Christmas off” (his wife?)

Why such a long campaign? “People want to enjoy their holidays and I think think they have a right to … there are important national issues at stake here … time to debate the issues.”

…56 days.  Cripes.

Back into the motorcade. Tom Clark of CTV notes that he didn’t mention a word about Gomery. I think it’s a touchy subject for Liberals.

Rideau

Paul Martin decided to hop into his motorcade instead of taking the confident stroll to Rideau Hall from his place around the corner. I guess his legs are broken… and he lacks confidence. He probably doesn’t want to look like a mopey loser going to tell the GG that he was incapable of keeping a government.

He’s not out yet, but they’re saying January 23.

Fucked Up Shit from the Networks #1

And so we begin a new running feature on Federal Election News and Rumours: fucked up shit from the networks.  Here, we will chronicle the weirdest and wackiest crap we see on the networks’ campaign coverage.

Number 1: The CBC’s mystery diarist.

More to come.

BQ Campaign Song

The BQ has their campaign song out. I’ll be damned if i know what they’re saying (that’s six years of grade-school French gone to waste), but it’s catchy! Do those separatists know how to party or what?! [h/t Daifallah]

Of further note

Most of the coverage tonight of Harper tonight featured his wonderfully perfect family.

Looks like he’ll be parading the children around again in hopes of bringing out the “family man” character. It’s especially important to play this up during the Christmas season. It’s one subliminal way of appealing to the “hard right” while being more ideologically pragmatic.

Yay, optics. It will be interesting to see the creative ways the leaders will be non-campaigning during the holiday season. Perhaps a photo-op of the family spreading the Christmas joy to the local Salvation Army shelter? I definitely see lots of charity/philanthropy in all the campaigns. Maybe this is a benefit to having Christmas elections. If anything, we’ll have campaigns pretending to have heart.

Harper

I’m watching CTV, and I just saw that both Craig Oliver and Allan Gregg were discussing Harper’s “scary” factor.
What is scary?

I’m not sure, but I’m pretty sure it implies having an understanding both of what Harper will do when elected in addition to the faith or assuredness that he’ll keep his promises.

Is this so bad?

That all depends on what you consider to be a scary promise. Harper’s main message will likely be accountability. I’m not sure that he’ll be touting any objectives from Focus on the Family. I like to think of the scariness factor being a gauge of how closely you adhere to liberal or conservative factors. That is, the further you deviate from the mushy middle, the scarier you’ll be painted.

Relevance?

Less scary = greater public appeal (more “centrist”) = selling out hardline values

In case you were wondering, Harper’s scary factor went down by ten points since the last election. Coupled with better overall polling and out-fundraising on the Conservatives’ part, it’s gonna be an interesting Christmas.

In other news, Michael Ignatieff claims to have been “misunderstood” by Ukrainians.

New Poll

Pollara has a new poll.

Ah, fuck it.  There are tonnes of new polls.  And who am I to try to top CalgaryGrit’s comprehensive round-up w/ commentary?

Live-Blogging CTV’s Non-Confidence Countdown

I’m starting a little late, but let’s see what happens.

It’s approximately 5:50PM and Craig Oliver is barely managing to keep his head from blowing apart. He does not like Mr. Ignatieff. Nope, not at all. Craig’s making very clear that Ignatieff’s support for “George Bush’s war in Iraq” and his affinity for America all but disqualify him from becoming Prime Minister. Also, according to Craig, Ignatieff is no Trudeau, because Trudeau put his “life on the line” to work against Duplessis’s “immoral” government. Holy Christ. I don’t care what you think about Ignatieff – could someone FIRE Craig Oliver? What a dickwad. He’s senile and useless and I hate him.

610pm, and we have the house leaders Tony Valeri, Jay Hill, and Libby Davies (who’s a lesbian; ask Shirley Chan, star Liberal candidate from 2004). Dave Chatters and Darrell Stinson are going to be voting despite health concerns. Jay Hill is bitching about the Libs not calling an election in January. Here’s Libby Davies (good lord, she’s a beastly looking woman, but her accent is kind of sexy, no?). Since nothing of substance is being said here, I’m going to make comments apropos of nothing:

• Tony Valeri looks like a white Count Chocula. He uses Crisco to style his hair.
• Libby Davies’ weight problem is probably not glandular. If her weight is the problem, the state is the solution.

614 pm. Holy shit! Jay Hill just said that the CPC will have policy! And early! He even looked serious.

621pm. NDP strategist Jamey Heath is dealing with male pattern baldness as best he can.

625pm. Olivia Chow, Jack Layton’s life partner, subsidized housing sharer, limo carpooler, and perpetual loser, gets ready to lose again!

642pm. Craig Oliver is still a dick.

644pm. Strategic Council. 42% think CPC responsible for dissolution of Parliament. Who cares? CTV.

647pm. Vote!

654pm. Speaker Milliken announces that there’s a reception after the vote to exchange season’s greetings. Much good-natured chuckling in the House.

709pm. 171-133.