04.05.2011 06:00 AM

KCCCC Day 11: Anatomy of a sloppy campaign

Logan Day, come home. All is forgiven.


  1. MontrealElite says:

    Harpo’s earliest TV appearance.


  2. Scott Tribe says:

    Decima had the gap trimmed to 7 yesterday. Nanos down to 9 today, and the Grits over 40% in Ontario for the first time in a long time that I can remember. Empirical evidence that the Liberals good campaign and the Cons sloppy one may be starting to turn a bit (subject of course until the next poll)

  3. Michael S says:

    According to Nanos the Liberals have taken the lead in Ontario. A statistically insignificant lead, true, but what is more important is the trendline. The Liberals are winning back soft Conservative voters.

    The Iggy Hat likely hurt more than helped in 905.

  4. MontrealElite says:

    Y’day I was wondering if the polls would pull back after Harpo started in on the LGR again. It’s popular in Qc. so not surprised to see that result.

    Harpo, please keep talking coalition, LGR and can someone get him to mention cutting funding to arts again…that was a 2008 beauty!

    C’mon LPC…CHANGE the polls!

  5. MontrealElite says:


    “No plan, just spinning my wheels”

  6. Warren says:

    I liked the seventies. I had the Pistols and the Ramones. Also, hair.

    • MontrealElite says:

      Gord, I’m used to not liking you. Don’t tell me you’re a Costello fan.

      Either way, XTC rules!

    • nic coivert says:

      Gord, I see musically we can agree.

      Complaining that Iggy is taking us back to the hay day of the 70’s though, that’s only going to play to the core. And besides, it isn’t true. One thing Ignatieff will do though is put us back on course to a Just Society. Harper has had humane liberal notions in his gun sights for some time now. Also, if as you say Iggy wants to return to the 70’s, then Harper would like us to return to the old testament when punishment reigned supreme.

  7. MontrealElite says:

    So Obama has done a good job then?

    As for the LPC platform being panned, does that include the Harper endorsing G&M which liked it?

  8. nic coivert says:

    Caption: Harper and friends on new campaign bus.

  9. Mike L says:

    Don’t forget this one Warren – a student who has never voted before and had a picture of herself with Iggy was booted from a Conservative rally:


    • MCBellecourt says:

      I caught both her story and the veterans’ story on the Chronicle-Herald’s website very early this morning Pacific Time (5AM and shortly after respectively). It’s 8:24 PM PT now and her story, especially, is all over the place.

  10. Anne Peterson says:

    Actually that’s a pretty pasted on crocodile smile, he actually looked terrified I thought.

  11. Ted says:

    “Universally” panned, like the Globe calling it “prudent and pragmatic or the Star likes it and even the Post had mixed views saying, for example, “As the National Post has advocated on more than one occasion, the party favours establishment of a civilian oversight board for the RCMP, along the lines of the one already in place for the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. The inability to reform the RCMP has been one of the biggest failures of the Tories’ five years in office. Indeed, under the Harper government, the rot within our once-proud national police force has gone from bad to worse.

    None of those papers have been particularly friendly to Michael Ignatieff. Columnists who have been regular Ignatieff detractors like Chantal Hebert are praising it.

    If this is “universally” panned, then give me more of it!

    But I suspect by saying “universally” you are using that old unreliable Conservative math again.

    • Mike says:

      “Those are corporate read: political editorials that you cite not opinion pieces where the author?s name is listed.”

      Pettifogging. You don’t really want to contribute anything of substance?

  12. wannabeapiper says:

    Caption…”I am only five minutes from the Mexican border, they will never find me. Does my head look big in this helmet? I’ll have to stop for a minute to clean the flies out of my teeth.”

  13. Ted says:

    I think you may have missed the dark horse/emerging story from yesterday.

    Three first time voters, all students, registered to attend a Harper rally (and WTF is that anyway? having ordinary Canadians register to hear their own PM???) and they were summarily and rudely kicked out. One and her friend because of a Facebook picture of her. Another because of a bumper sticker on his car. This is just downright frightening kind of stuff a creepy Big Brother “our eyes on you” kind of way, when ordinary Canadians must register to hear their PM and banned from participating in democracy if they don’t fit the right mold.

    But that was not all.

    Another student was kicked out of a Harper event in Guelf yesterday. She properly registered to attend the Harper event (again, WTF?) and attended the non-protest, pro-vote non-partisan pro-student rally and then was booted out by the Conservatives for having attended the rally.

    Kids excercising their right of freedom of association, eagerly and keenly participating in the democratic process by encouraging others to vote and seeking to hear the PM, banned, kicked out, humiliated by the RCMP, offended by the Conservatives.

    And that is still not all.

    Yesterday, the Harperites also banned a veteran from attending one of Harper’s precious sermons because he had exercise his right to free expression on the treatment of veterans.

    What the hell is going on here?

    It’s one thing for Harper to refuse to answer questions from the media. It’s dumb and even the Sun calls it anti-democratic, but I get that for him the risks associated with being accountable are greater than the media getting upset at not being able to do their job. So he’s afraid of the media, so what, right?

    It’s one thing for Harper to refuse a one-on-one debate with Ignatieff. It’s dumb and everyone can see that he’s chickened out. But I get that for him the risks associated with going toe-to-toe with someone on the issues are too great. So he’s chicken sh*t to answer questions, so what, right?

    But this is wholly different. Not just because he refuses even to meet with ordinary Canadians or to even let us hear him speak. But here we have ordinary Canadians, not only trying to participate in the democratic process and educate themselves, being shut out because they are not the “right kind” of Canadians. Ordinary Canadians being banned by the Conservatives for exercising their most basic and fundamental rights. And being spied upon!

    This is the most creepy and eerie thing to come out of the Conservative Party so far.

    • fritz says:

      The story here is not that the Harper campaign is operating in a bubble as is common practice with front-runner campaigns. The story, it seems to me, is how bad they are at executing that strategy.
      The incidents that Ted references above; along with the Carson affair; are going to be the story lines of todays Harper campaign and not the Tory volunteer firefighter tax credit.
      Yet another days message not delivered.

    • Namesake says:

      In fairness to the RCMP, it’s not clear it was them who was doing the shooing:

      more likely, it’s the self-styled Secret Service PMO staffers, like the ones who chased away this advocate for homeless veterans at a Halifax non-event last week:


      • Ted says:

        They would have only done the shooing on the direction of the party organizers. They wouldn’t know who was invited and who not, who was the “right kind of person” and who not, who was important enough to hear – not ask questions of course just hear – Harper speak and who not.

    • Ted says:

      Read elsewhere:

      Canadian democracy – by invitation only.

    • Rob W says:

      Geez… if this is the current MO for the PMO, well, looks like people like you and me Ted (given WK.com & FB profiles/postings) will be on the outside looking in at any CPC event.

  14. Patrick Deberg says:

    Harper engineered the unravelling of Stockwells leadership and by all appearences it looks like stockboy released Steve’s majic helmet carpet ride. Revenge is sweet !! I can see Stock on the phone, Ride an ATV Steve, it looks Manly. Put a really big helmet on though……Really big big helmet…………….

  15. GPAlta says:

    Caption- I’m not only undependable, but I’m a bit of a kook

    As in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoSiKpqvD9Q

    Fred: But you said you were supposed to serve us, to give us what we want
    Gazoo: My dear fellow, I’m not only undependable, but I’m a bit of a kook
    . . . .
    And since I am supposed to serve you, I will try. But take heed, don’t ask for more than you can handle, you may get it!

  16. MontrealElite says:

    This is good for Harper.

    Cue Bev Oda………..NOT!

    Ottawa?s fighter-jet estimate ?all hogwash,? U.S. watchdog warns


    • Mike says:

      Gord, you do that sort of thing ALL the time.

    • Namesake says:

      Says the guy who went to the wall defending Rush Limbaugh. You wouldn’t know impartial if Jesus Himself returned, to ask you to love ALL your neighbours.

      Wheeler’s an expert on military COSTS — on how they invariably escalate far, far beyond their manufacturers’ rosy predictions. And he’d worked for the non-partisan GAO, and for both Republican and Democratic administrations, to tell one and all when they’re being spun… or just plane lied to.

      Here’s another article summarizing his latest counsel, which includes the radical suggestion:

      Fly before you buy. (i.e., make sure the damn things work and know what they’ll actually cost, first, before signing the dotted line).

      Damn Communist!


    • MontrealElite says:

      Attack messenger when you’ve lost.

      Do a chicken dance like your boss

    • Gord, Gord, Gord. You really ought to lay off the acid.

      The best source is the Vice Admiral in charge of the program.

      U.S. Vice Admiral David Venlet, chief of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program office, recently testified before the U.S. Congress that the latest cost estimates for the F35A were on the order of $127 million.

      See link for details. You can’t buy them for less, not from Crazy Jim Flaherty’s discount shop, not from Army Surplus in Bozeman Montana, not anywhere. Well… you could but you’d have to buy them without an engine!

      Do you believe Venlet or choose to believe grumpy Laurie Hawn and his masters instead? Maybe you believe Vice Admiral Venlet is part of the VLC (Vast Liberal Conspiracy) you believe in?

      Or how about that left-wing news outfit Reuters which reports a cost of > 150 million? What about that Israel which purchased theirs for $148 million?

  17. Old Ed says:

    What, a Conservative taking the Lord’s name in vain?

  18. allegra fortissima says:

    “Yabba-Dabba-Doo – Don’t toy with me, Barn”

  19. Charles does not surf says:

    Yippee!! I sure love me some mud!

  20. reformatory says:

    where’s “the other jim”

  21. Marc L says:

    But they are NOT saying they will NOT buy jets. They’re just saying not these jets. Or not now. Actually, they don’t quite seem to know.

    • Namesake says:

      They’re not sure because they’re not pre-empting or pre-ordaining the proper process: they want to actually follow it — namely, do a new needs assessment, and formulate a proper Statement of Requirements (not a retroactive, reverse engineered one that gerrymanders it so that only the model that’s already been selected fits the bill), which’ll determine how many units of what type are needed (incl. what features are absolutely req’d & which ones also wanted), within the max. allotted budget, then put it out to tender to see who’ll guarantee the best time-frames, regional industrial benefits, and prices.

      • Marc L says:

        Fine, but that doesn’t mean they will save a truckload of money that will be available to spend by not buying jets as the poster I was responding to claims, now does it?

        • smelter rat says:

          They could buy some off the shelf jets tomorrow from Britain. The F35 is the military equivalent of vapourware.

  22. JS Rothwell says:

    I’m west of Tulk & I have positive memories of Trudeau. Then again tinfoil isn’t part of my wardrobe

  23. Mandos says:

    One way or the other, Trudeau at least established the principle that living atop ancient dead plankton doesn’t actually make you a special, um, snowflake.

  24. Craig says:

    Caption: “How do I put this thing in reverse? I think my old accountibility platform is still alive…”

  25. fritz says:

    Gord for a tenth the cost of the F35’s you could buy three times the the number of predator drones that we could get off the shelf today.
    We could use them to monitor the thousands of miles of coastline; including in the new arctic ocean looking for illegal foreign fishing fleets, ocean bulk carriers & tankers dumping bilge oil and ships trying to test our sovereignty in the arctic.
    When, if ever, the F35’s are ever delivered they will cost, at least, triple the price the Tories are saying and have little use to our military.

    • fritz says:

      Gord, I’m talking about the drones with camera and/or missiles; but just the cameras are important from my POV. We have a real need for surveillance over our oceans. The F18’s will holdup for another fifteen twenty years if we actually needed them in a case like Libya. Hell the Seakings are 40 years+ past their retirement date and they’re still flying.

  26. Tim says:


    In the words of the Great Gazoo himself

    “I’m not only undependable, I’m a bit of a kook.”

  27. Marc L says:

    Liberal partisans here keep on talking about all the money that will be saved by cancelling the jets, but the Liberal platform is completely vague on this issue. How much will actually be saved if anything? You don’t know, unless the plan is not to buy any planes at all — which is visibly not the case. You don’t know what planes a Liberal government will buy or at what cost. So, how do you know you will save a truckload of money that will be used to spend. Maybe nothing at all will be saved. Maybe it will end up costing more. For all the talk about Conservative hidden agendas, the Liberal agenda here is certainly not very clear…

      • Marc L says:

        Thank you, that makes my point perfectly.

        • Namesake says:

          Um, no, it doesn’t.

          For one thing, the research the PBO did determined that even if we end up buying the SAME items in a competition, we’d probably save 20% in the procurment costs. Probably more, since there might be a delay, and as the GAO pointed out last week, the costs will actually get cheaper the further along those F35s are into their production, as they become more efficient.

          For another, the new Statement of Requirement that’s need- rather than wish-list- driven may find that we won’t really need ANY multi-role fighters, as opposed to a variety of more specialized things (incl. drones), so we may save the whole $30-B on the wrong sorts of things, but spend $20-B on the right sorts of things.

          Again, it’s too hard to say when the CPC won’t even release the suspect, after-the-fact SoR that they didn’t even admit existed until recently, and are now still treating as classified.

          • Marc L says:

            You just made my point for me again….
            The fact is you don’t know. You don’t know what you would save. You could “probably” save on the procurement costs if the PBO is right, which is far from certain. Judging by his budget estimates, he is certainly not God — he may not even be competent. You may or may not need the planes. You may indeed save $30bn on the wrong things and spend $20 on the right things. Or maybe not. But that`s exactly my point — you can`t argue that cancelling the planes will save $30bn that you can use for nice new shiny spending initiatives (or whatever other amount you wish to claim)as some posters here are saying. You just don’t know that.
            On another note…Frankly I don`t want to get into a debate as to whether the planes are neeeded or not. I don`t know. I’m not the military. The problem is, I suspect Ignatieff doesn’t know either. To me, this smells of the EH-101 fiasco, and if there is one thing I hate, it’s politicians of all stripes (yes, all stripes…they are all guilty of it) playing with serious issues to attempt to cash in politically. It`s easy to trash the military (and corporations, and evil rich people) in order to pander to the lowest common denominator out there. But ultimately, it’s wrong if you care about more than just power.

          • Namesake says:

            and which numbers has the PBO been off on, then, Marc, even with the CPC cutting his budget in half and systematically withholding information from him?

            Because it’s the TD Bank economists that were wildly off for the last few years about the deficits and have revised THEIR numbers to match HIS for the latest fiscal year, to end at $40-B in the whole. And it’s the TD who have wildly optimistic forecasts about the future years: on the assumption that — hah! — the CPC would start cutting; even tho’ the first thing they did when they saw a little wiggle room was to EXPAND program spending by $2 more Billion in the new budget.

  28. well says:

    This is nicer look:




    By consider Canada weather too much rain or snow and muddy road in farm and rural
    and use less gass by 4 cylinders car and able to attached all snow removal tractor and cut grass and clean garabage
    and etc
    small truck needs with cover hood






    • Namesake says:

      WK – plz delete the above post: it’s messed up the formatting for the whole thread, and is just pics of toy trucks etc.

      to well & others:

      please use a link shortener like http://shrinkthislink.com/ when cutting & pasting links if they have more than 30 characters or so between slashes

  29. Robert Viera says:

    Could this be part of the Conservatives next campaign ad?


    They’ve joined a video clip with Michael Ignatieff saying “There is no greater fan of lingerie than me” with another clip of him saying “and so I have people touching my private parts all day long”.

    Glad to see the Conservatives frat boys are hard at work, and saving the party money by using a government server.

    • allegra fortissima says:

      A true conservative is one who can’t see any difference between a balconette and a demi cup 🙂

  30. Badly needed? No.
    Replacements needed eventually? Yes.
    Is Harper government telling truth about costs of F-35A fighter aircraft? No.

    New tag line for Harper’s party: Truth is so Inconvenient ™

  31. James says:

    Although I’m going to stalked by Namesake again, a just released Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll has revealed that 45% of Canadians would like a majority govenment; just 20% would be happy with another minority government. Harper is on a winning strategy in talking up a majority this time around.

    • Namesake says:

      Huh? Where’d you get that? Now it’s you who seems deluded. The just-released H-D — which found just a 7 pt split in the latest week, BTW — doesn’t even ask that.



      You appear to be confusing it with the LEGER poll which found that 44% of all the respondents are SCARED by the possibility of a Harper majority

      including 5% of CPC voters, (not-so) oddly enough.

      Only 29% would like to see it. (78% of CPC supporters, & only b/w 4 & 9% of the other parties).


      BTW, H-D also looked at leadership:

      “Mr. Harper is viewed favourably by 45%, and unfavourably by 52%. Those viewing him unfavourably have jumped from the 43% recorded in February. Additionally, 52% represents the highest ‘unfavourable’ rating the Prime Minister has received in this tracking, dating back to the beginning of the 2008 election.

      • James says:

        It’s on ctv.ca under storyline “Fact Check: Minority Governments the ‘new normal’?”. I can read English, Namesake.

        Scot, judging by the strong lead of the Conservatives in the polls, it would seem logical that they want it to be a Harper majority. The 45% pretty much coincides with the 39-42% base support right now of the Conservatives.

        • Namesake says:

          Oh, I see: so when you say “a just released Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll” without a link or reference,

          I shouldn’t try to fact-check by looking at their latest release — or indeed, any of the company’s own actual releases, which has nothing answering to that http://www.harrisdecima.ca/

          I should try to guess where you might have been reading or hearing that from….

          Where it turns out that the equally sloppy CTV source’s reference to a “recent” poll refers to this one,

          from, um, LAST week, which is…

          …anything but a ringing endorsement of your guy, or your take on this, and in fact is consistent with what I reported from the Leger poll above:

          “Canadians would prefer a majority government be elected on May 2; they’re just not ready to hand one to either Stephen Harper or Michael Ignatieff, a new poll suggests.

          The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey found 29 per cent of respondents would prefer a Conservative majority under Prime Minister Harper; another eight per cent would prefer a Tory minority.

          Sixteen per cent would prefer a majority led by Liberal Leader Ignatieff, 12 per cent a Grit minority.

          Combining the findings for the two leaders, the poll suggests 45 per cent would like to see a majority government of some stripe versus 20 per cent who’d be content with another minority. Another 24 per cent said they’d prefer some other result.

          …At the moment, at least, the poll suggests few believe any party will capture a majority. Only 18 per cent predicted a Tory majority, just six per cent a Liberal majority.


  32. Patrick Hamilton says:

    Hey, where did everyone go?…..Laureena and Dimitri were just behind me a second ago…..Guys?……

  33. Chris Rowlinson says:

    Caption: “Look mom, I didn’t fall off this one!”

  34. well says:

    The main problems of conservative are:

    First, they can not accept “No” seriously

    secondly their massive amount of energy they put when they are “angry” to hit other party who told them NO to force them to YES
    Third if you do some job to ‘Stop’ them for doing wrong or illegal and they like to do what ever they like to do
    Fourth they lying too much or cover truth and not shy to do that

    when you say to any conservative in political party or in any business NO
    make sure you have big lawyer and big security to prevent them for any unexpecting job they may do because of anger problems they all similary have

    that anger lead them to bulliness and change all toward and not act reasonably or even bring us to unwanted boxing box to hit you

    If you say to them You do not like to fight again they punch you another one and keep hiting to finally must put too much energy to stop them
    when review what caused all conspiracy and answer was in certain year you said No to them

    Harper government was more hit to go to new election for majority
    when they told Harper NO to gun registry as an example and he got angry to put all agressive to get majority to do whatever he wants

  35. smelter rat says:

    And now the Cons have plagiarized a teaparty election ad. This lot haven’t had an original thought ever. Best quote on the G&M web site: Note to Harper, if you’re going to plagiarize a campaign ad, a general rule of thumb is to pick a candidate who has more charisma than a barn.

  36. MCBellecourt says:

    Caption: “OK, I’m smiling, dammit!! Now where the f@$% is the BRAKE????”

  37. Anne Peterson says:

    I’m from west of Bloor Street (a farm in the middle of Alberta actually) and I liked Trudeau and the NEP. Still do because I put Canada first.

    And how about The Man arriving in a fire truck? What next, a choo choo train? Get shot into rallies from a cannon? Guess we can guess the age of his little planners, can’t we?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *