The moments
The liberal and conservative moments of the week came at once.
Its a liberal moment in that even being faced with the reality they still think Canadians will buy it just because its liberals saying it.
Its also a cosnervative moment due to how it points out that obvious fact.
But in the next federal election campaign, which could come as early as next spring,
all of this will change. The voters in this province will look at whoever is leading the Liberal party and ask: Who is this person?
And if that person is someone committed to putting this country through more years of constitutional turmoil just to deal with Quebec, they will shake their heads in disbelief and begin to think that maybe, just maybe, they should cast their ballots for some other party.
In other words, this plan means Quebec is special, the rest of Canada is not.
I've got an idea. If the next liberal leader wants to really float this lead ballon but not look like a patsy for the fair weather federalists in Quebec, offer instead to rejig the constitution to remove all references to provinces and replace it with nations.
After all why would the party of the charter be infavour of creating lesser citizens by virtue of which province you lived in. That would be discimination.
On the federal byelections
Due to the recently called byelections I'd like to offer some sample questions to the candidates. If anyone in those neighbourhoods gets the chance I won't be offended if someone decides to use them and press the candidates with one of these.
- If your party where to form government would you take steps to stop Canadian defence industries from supplying the US military if those products where being used in Iraq?
- Does your party favour giving one province more recognition in the constitution than any of the other provinces?
- Does your party agree that our military should have an independent airlift capability to deploy effectively outside of Canada when assistance is requested?
- Does your party favour placing restrictions on those Canadians seeking private health care outside of Canada?
- Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?
- Does your party believe we can negotiate with terrorists?
- Does your party favour government run prostitution?
- Does your party favour legalizing pot?
- How does a needle exchange stop the trafficing of illicit and illegal drugs?
- How does a gun registry stop the distribution and use of unregistered firearms in the commission of a crime?
- Should illegal immigrants be given immunity from immigration laws?
- Does your party support embryonic stem cell research? If so where would you get the embryos from?
- How does your parties enviromental policy clean up the air we breathe? How is pollution different from a green house gas?
- In those cases where natives have occupied land, the court rules that no legitimate claim exists, and if the province requested assitance to remove the occupiers, would your government send in the army to remove the natives?
Now all they need is for Volpe to endorse Rae
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.The only result however is that this will only drag out the contest to a third or forth ballot. The danger being is that the
longer it goes the further up the ante goes.
Isn't this exactly how Meech and Charlottetown went off the rails?
The wording of the resolution recognizes Quebec as a nation, but also requires a group of experts "to advise the next party leader to explore different ways and the most opportune moment to sanction this historic and social reality." In other words create a false crisis to fit the preprogramed "solution".
It doesn't matter what policy or legislative agenda a party takes, that if it chooses to discount the needs and desires of those it affects most, the outcome will only satisfy the elites and special interests. Worse, it may also end up making it much worse.
In other words, asking for the opinioin of the grass roots and then blatantly ignoring them will not only miss the desired outcome, but create a backlash effect with ordinary folks.
See law of diminshing returns and "special status".
I like reading Chantal Hebert's columns
Not because I neccessarily agree or disagree with any premise she may be promoting at any one time. But because as a classic example of so-called federalists in Quebec, she represents that type of liberal that while they can clearly see the flaws in certain sacred truths, they refuse to renounce them.
As I framed the statement above in the context of federalist vs nationalist, I'd like to further elaborate that when the true goal of these two groups is understood, the difference between the two evaporates. That goal being to extract more power, money, and concessions from Ottawa on the basis that, well, its all about Quebec.
Neither group really wants separation, what they do want is special treatment to hell with the rest of the country.
But I digress.
In this latest bit, Ms. Hebert gives
a commentary on the last liberal leadership debate. What I find odd is that Iggy's views regarding issues in southwest Asia, where suppose to be his biggest flaw. However, due to Iggy's adherance to the idea that Quebec is a nation, all past sins are now forgiven.
Chantal and the rest of the Quebec fence sitters can equivocate all they like, but no matter how they explain it, it still comes down to how the liberals and the separatists want it to be a choice of either give us what we want or we break up the country.
The fun will start when those like Iggy and his entourage of "Quebec is so special" get cornered to provide details on the constitutional amendment to make it so.
Please do tell the rest of the great unwashed, how in a country that has a charter expounding on equal rights, can one province, based on whatever premise you want, be more equal than the other provinces?
It was on this question that the last two attempts at appeasing the soft nationalist/federalist/separatist in Quebec that derailed constitutional reform. I speak of course of the DOA Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords. Stephen Harper was around for that and was the true father of the Clarity Act, which Hebert herself actually wrote in a same titled column. He knows what the old game is and said as much in the last campaign.
He wants to make it two choices as well, but the problem for the soft nationalists is that they have to choose to come to the table and recognize that being part of the nation has responsibilities, or remaining with the old status quo and being outed as fair weather federalists.
Let me put it in a way that leaves no misunderstanding.
Quebecers do have a nationality, its called Canadian.
Oh and as a side note. To those that are starting to think the liberals are resurgent and that the conservatives are losing support (read: liberals could win next election) a word of caution.
Be careful what you wish for, because if the liberals win we are right back to where we left off with Bucky Dither's. It would be a liberal PM that is more than willing to pander to any group to retain power regardless the cost in diplomatic ties (anti-americanism, anti-Israel) , fiscal responsibility (NDP budget), or national unity ("Quebec is a nation"), because thats what I'm hearing from most if not all the leadership contenders.
Update:
I just forgot to point out that once again this shows how much the liberals are underestimating Harper.
They want to play the constitutional game by the old rules where no one dared challenge the separatists contentions that Quebec separation would be painless and a foregone conclusion.
Harper has not and will not play that game.
Iggy may offer whatever an audience is asking for (plan A, i.e. Sponsorships), Harper will like a father dealing with a petulant teen intent on running roughshod over the rules of the house, take a hard line against separatists.
He will let the separatists know in no uncertain terms that while there is a conservative government in Ottawa the divorce would be made as difficult and as problematic as possible, real plan B stuff.
The term "just watch me" comes to mind.
Just to remind the lib-left what that term actually referred to.
Raising the dead
There seems to be a bit of liberal gloating over the vote on reviving the Kelowna Accord.
The opposition should be careful what it asks for, and think twice about handing Harper a way to blame liberals for forcing an election especially before they pick a new leader.
Of course it was Paul Martin that tabled this private members bill isn't it?
If they think they can recreate the fall of Joe Clark better think again.
Stephen Harper is no Joe Clark, and Trudeau is long since dead.
They didn't get the memo, money vote equals confidence vote.
Here's the mechanics of how this is going to trip up the Liberals.
Ontario finishes its civic elections and Harper announces when this bill comes before the House it will be a confidence motion.
The liberals, all supporting Kelowna don't you know, are cornered into having to support this legislation. The NDP will as well. That leaves the Bloc, who of late have seemed more likely ready to go to the polls sooner rather than later.
The liberals will realize too late that they got set up and that Ontario is going to have a provincial election (by law) in the fall of 07. That means they have to have an election in the spring or summer at the latest. My gut feeling is Harper has had this planned out well in advance.
Sucks to be the liberals.
If the NDP are "liberals in a hurry"
Then the
liberals are socialists that
can't make up their mind.
Lets stop recognizing the Bloc as an Official party
How about tabling a bill that effectively removes official status of federal parties that refuse to run candidates outside of one province.
I'm talking about the Bloc.
I'm not advocating deregistering, we can't stop them from running. What can be done is to remove their official status.
Its a poison pill for the separatists.
Think for a moment about the visual perception of the Bloc running to a charter argument their right to official recognition in a country they want to break up.
Write your MP.
Strategic Council screed
I suppose every political watcher has seen this
poll.
If you read the headline and nothing else you would get the impression the liberals have made steady gains against the conservatives.
Hey you read it, you decide.
But I would like to point out something that you would see if you looked at the whole article.
quote:
CANADA
Assuming Michael Ignatieff won the Liberal leadership race, who would be the best prime minister?
Stephen Harper: 37%
Michael Ignatieff: 23%
Jack Layton: 17%
Gilles Duceppe: 7%
Don't know: 17%
Assuming Bob Rae won the Liberal leadership race, who would be the best prime minister?Stephen Harper: 36%
Bob Rae: 26%
Jack Layton: 15%
Gilles Duceppe: 6%
Don't know: 16%
Assuming Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership race, who would be the best prime minister?
Stephen Harper: 38%
Stephane Dion: 21%
Jack Layton: 17%
Gilles Duceppe: 6%
Don't know: 18%
Assuming Gerard Kennedy won the Liberal leadership race, who would be the best prime minister?
Stephen Harper: 38%
Gerard Kennedy: 17%
Jack Layton: 18%
Gilles Duceppe: 7%
Don't know: 20%
*****
ONTARIO
Assuming Michael Ignatieff won the Liberal leadership race, who would be the best prime minister?
Stephen Harper: 39%
Michael Ignatieff: 22%
Jack Layton: 21%
Gilles Duceppe: 2%
Don't know: 17%
Assuming Bob Rae won the Liberal leadership race, who would be the best prime minister?Stephen Harper: 37%
Bob Rae: 29%
Jack Layton: 17%
Gilles Duceppe: 2%
Don't know: 16%
Assuming Stephane Dion won the Liberal leadership race, who would be the best prime minister?
Stephen Harper: 39%
Stephane Dion: 21%
Jack Layton: 21%
Gilles Duceppe: 2%
Don't know: 18%
Assuming Gerard Kennedy won the Liberal leadership race, who would be the best prime minister?
Stephen Harper: 41%
Gerard Kennedy: 20%
Jack Layton: 20%
Gilles Duceppe: 2%
Don't know: 18%
Now what stands out most out of those statistics?
That Stephen Harper is consistently the first choice by close to 40% in the rest of Canada.
This doesn't apply to the Quebec data, but I'm about to throw in a monkey wench that indicates the respondents didn't really consider their answers.
-1- Any time a poll shows the undecideds within the percentage of error of at least one of the selections, that indicates the poll is too biased.
-2- When one of those selections cannot achieve the outcome, in this case the Bloc cannot ever form government, the poll will inherently be biased in that it asks for an approval rating of how good a PM Mr Duceppe would be.
-3- That only in Quebec does any of the liberal contenders come out ahead of Mr Harper.
But its a poll, not actual outcome.
So what was the purpose then?
Could it be to influence how liberal delegates would vote at the convention....nah couldn't be. Iwould however point out the questions specified the names of the four leadership contenders instead of just referring to the party names.
So here's my read.
Right now there are some that would prefer the liberals in power, with the caveat that their guy wins the leadership. Should their guy not win they will less inclined to vote liberal.
With that in mind go back and review the statistics and pay particular attention to Quebec.
Sucks to be them.
What if McKenna had run?
I ask the question because I've noticed that Frank is starting to make some public appearances and saying things that no liberal leadership contender would dare say i.e.: Canada should join misslie defence. It tells me that the LPC has come to the realization that they may be in opposition for some time unless they can find a leader that will appeal to Harper's conservative base. They still don't get it.
While I agree McKenna has made a correct assessment, I disagree that,
as some liberal bloggers want to contend, that if he had entered the race and said as much that he wouldn't have recieved as rough a ride as Iggy is getting now.
The reason I dissagree about this is that the LPC is still very much beholden to the special interest groups that have co-opted their party.
Proof in point, they still award delegate status to interest groups. If they want to make it a fair contest, really fair, they have to only allow the riding associations to send delegates.
If it wasn't the case, would Iggy have gone on a popular french language network talk show and say something totally out of character? Or was it as it appeared, just a crass attempt to patronize the anti-Israel voters in Quebec?
The crux of it is that until the liberals reject the only policy they have (power at all costs) even the Dalai Lama wouldn't be safe from the depradations of the liberal party poll watchers entrenched in the backrooms of Power.
Like I posted on another blog this AM, agree or dissagree with Harper, Canada knows where he stands. Nobody can say for certain where the liberals stand, that makes them inconsistent and most importantly untrustworthy.
Somehow in their rush to get the stage set for McKenna's entry into the federal liberal fold I doubt they will understand this and in the process will transform Frank McKenna into the type of liberal leader Paul Martin was.
Sucks to be them.
Report from the front Oct 14
Just when you thought the race for Stornoway was all about what is and what isn't a war crime
Dr Roy's Thoughts: Ignatieff's camp accuses Rae BC organizers of massive fraud
Time for a geography lesson
For any of you avidly following the Iggy expedition digging its way to China, I offer a related respite to sweep the cobwebs from your mind.
Seeing as the issue being discussed is surrounding who is and who isn't committing crimes, I'd like to offer a related topic regarding geography.
Can anyone correctly identify the countries named Hezbolla and Hamas?
I know I can find Israel, a country that qualifies all the rules to be recognized as a nation, namely that they have control of their borders and actively maintain them. But I can't seem to find any countries that go by the other two names.
So if they aren't a nation themselves, and no country seems to want to take ownership of them, doesn't that make them just an organization of sorts? Maybe even a criminal one into acts of extortion, kidnapping, and hit jobs against an identifiable group? And as they have been involved in military action against Israel, does this also not support a contention that their actions are either an invasion, insurrection, or an act of war?
The point is that those acts are a threat to the security of the nation being attacked, and under international law any country that refuses to take action against such acts loses its legitimacy.
For any liberals that worship at the altar of Trudeau, this was part of the reason he decided the war measures act wasn't such a bad thing in October of 1970.
Further more theres a name for these types of groups, we call them terrorists. The world bodies identify this type of action as crimes against humanity.
Things generally go to hell in a hand basket when a country can't keep these folks from establishing operations inside their borders.
Theres another word for that kind of outcome, its called a failed state.
Which is where I like to point out is exactly what happened in Afghanistan and why Canada is there helping to rebuild a legitimate government that can take its rightful obligations in the international community.
Here endeth the lesson.
Please resume the Iggy leadership death watch.
A bit on public statements by elected
Today when asked our PM said the
following"This is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken with virtually all of the candidates of the Liberal leadership, and I don't think it's helpful or useful."
Now you may agree with what he said or as I've seen on the lib-left blogs vehemently attack it as outrageous. But what will resonate with the non-political types in the land is the difference in how Harper will handle the fallout compared to Iggy.
You won't hear Harper months from now openly musing before hostile media what he should or shouldn't have said nor compounding it by doing a "hail mary".
Liberal moment of the week Oct 8 - 14
Pandering? Iggy? Saying anything to garner support? Can't be.
Tell me it isn't so.
The envelope please courtesy of the
National Post.
"I have to wonder if he is pandering to certain delegates who will be voting in the Liberal election for leadership."
A cage match in the making
Adam has a heads up on an upcoming event.
Get ready to rumbleI wonder if this was arranged prior to Bob Rae announcing his intentions to run for the liberal leadership or before Peterson's public assessment of Rae's suitability as a candidate? The point being is that the intent by the Toronto centric CBC's little brother TVO was no doubt to have a face off between liberals and conservatives with the questions stacked in favour of liberals.
The fun will start when somebody brings up questions of election promises broken, native occupations, foreign policy, to dovetail onto the subject of the race for Stornoway.
The end result I predict is that Mike "the knife" Harris is going to get some payback for being used as a prop by liberals to demonize conservatives.
This will be worth watching.
The liberal civil war report from the front
Anybody but Ignatieff,
Axworthy tells Liberals
Could Iggy be the mole?
Musings from a "
progressive blogger".
This part of "The 8 Most Despicable Things Said and Done by Michael Ignatieff " really stood out.
"Ignatieff has already done damage to the liberal party. If he were elected
leader, Ignatieff would further damage the party he would divide it, driving
leftist support to the green party and the NDP."
The Sudanese slave trade and bleeding heart stooges
London Ontario can boast that it is home to Canada's version of
Bill and Hillary.
Liberals
hearts may be in the right place but as usual they tend to think throwing money at a problem is the answer.
The
results suggest
other wise.
"But what has been done to these people and to these children may not be what it appears. One insider has come forward with claims that the scenes of mass redemptions seen around the world are a hoax.
的t's a show. It's a circus, it's a staged event,・says Jim Jacobson, who worked for Eibner before becoming a slave redeemer himself. Like Eibner, Jacobson had to work with a rebel army to find the slaves and free them. The Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army - the SPLA - provides the planes and protection, the intermediaries and the interpreters for the short time that slave redeemers are on the ground.
He got up there, and there was a botched radio communication,・Jacobson says of one redemption.・
The word did not get there in time. The kids weren't waiting for us. I said, Where are the children?・And they said, 前h-- just wait-- or, you know, just go over here and meet with the village leader and-- you know, we-- we'll find the-- the slaves.・
Then, Jacobson says, he watched the SPLA handlers round up children in the village and escort them over by the tree.
Instant slaves,・he says. kids of the village. Kids that were just playing around. I mean you know, I just wanted to cry.・
Who is to be believed? "
Who indeed.
It almost sounded like how the liberal party would round up instant-members to help put a candidate in office.
Todays bit of screed on the race for Stornoway
There's alot of subjective commentary on this weekends delegate selection for the liberal leadership race, so it won't really matter if there is one more.
From my POV it doesn't matter who wins, because the LPC will hold their nose and say they support whoever wins the race. I say "hold their nose" because for them until they ditch the "power at all costs monetary, legal, or moral" they cannot truly say they've learned their lesson and deserve another chance at running the country.
But I digress, when one of those candidates is a guy that has expounded on how he's going to gore some sacred cows and not just a few of the left wing have demonized him for being "Harper-like", I find it just a bit disengeneous that those that support him are doing it cause they believe he's the next incarnation of Trudeau. Frankly what I believe it is (and here's my subjective diatribe) is that they see the next lunch wagon has arrived and they want to tag along for a freebee.
Now for the second bit of diatribe. See there are still some trudeauites in the liberal party that take exception to Mikey and his self-ascribed likening to Trudeau, especially when he's said so many things diametrically opposed to the trudeau legacy. These old timers however occupy some of the well entrenched hiarchy of the party and will do anything to see that Iggy doesn't win. So lets look at the numbers, Iggy has 30% of delegates, a good lead but not a sure thing if the next two candidates decide to combine their votes. Well thats not likely to happen till after the first ballot. What will happen is horse trading and thats a dangerous thing if your the front runner. In the liberal world view everybody has a price, and conversely, everybody's soul is for sale. Iggy may be an honourable man, but when the party you aspire to lead is still infected with the operatives of Adscam in the head office, its not a stretch to think that a few of them are resident in the Iggy campaign. In the last stretch of the campaign team Iggy is going to be trying to solidify his gain, so to are Rae, Dion, and Kennedy. As a result the also rans will be considered fair game and will be offered a great deal in return for their delegate support. The other side of that coin is that if the offer becomes public knowledge the campaign team making the offer looks despirate or if the offer is border line (not illegal but immoral) they help remind Canadians that the liberal party is still up to their dirty old tricks.
Now having considered that the party is still got the adscam players very much in place how hard is it to see this type of scenario scuttle at least one of the candidates campaign heading into the convention?
Like I said, it doesn't matter who wins.
