04.20.2011 06:48 AM

KCCCC Day 26: Weird, man



This explains so very much.

117 Comments

  1. Pete says:

    So then Warren, if the Libs have moved too central, will you be voting NDP?

  2. MontrealElite says:

    So Iggy is apparently in trouble for telling Mansbridge that the constitution allows for approaching the GG to try and get the confidence of the HoC if the governing party loses that confidence.

    Iggy points out that the constitutiion allows for what Harper actually did in 2004 and Iggy’s the one in trouble?

    Meanwhile back in reality Soudas doesn’t know which version of events he’ll be going with today

    Ministers intervened after Harper spokesman lobbied Montreal Port Authority

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ministers-intervened-after-harper-spokesman-lobbied-montreal-port-authority/article1991831/

    • Namesake says:

      That story — which is also appearing in the Star http://urlm.in/hoio & Radio-Canada, where it broke — is one to watch:

      it falls into the ‘Judge by the company that you keep,’ ‘Rot goes right to the top,’ and ‘Follow the money’ categories.

      ‘Cuz the issue isn’t just that the PMO, thru Harper’s ‘right-hand (hatchet) man’ Soudas, was exceeding it’s authority by lobbying an arm’s-length agency to make a political rather than a merit-based appointment in a position that is NOT supposed to be a political appointment, and bullying a Minister and his staff member who’d tried to undo that undue influence — which we now know is all pretty much standard operating procedure for this autocrat —

      but also WHO they were trying to get appointed:

      the (mechanical) engineer they wanted to get appointed as the President or CEO of the Montreal Port Authority was/is part of Antonio Accurso’s organization, and Accurso & some of his, um, allies, wanted him in there;

      The Port itself is a big money operation ($2-billion in annual economic activity), which also obviously oversees a lot of imports and exports, and was about to spend a fortune on: construction (“At the time of the executive search, the port was also planning to spend $2.5-billion as part of a massive expansion plan dubbed Vision 2020.”)

      And Accurso is a “construction industry boss,” who’s been involved in billions of dollars of public works contracts in QC who’s since run afoul of both Revenue Canada the law in QC — which the CPC Gov’t has pointedly kept out of:

      “Shell companies used in tax fraud scheme: Revenue Canada”
      Wed Apr. 08 2009; ctvmontreal.ca
      http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090408/mtl_shell_090408?hub=MontrealHome

      “No role for Ottawa in Quebec Mafia investigation: Nicholson”
      By THE CANADIAN PRESS, cp.org, October 23, 2009
      http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/cp-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22379681

      “Construction magnate faces loss of builder’s licences”
      RHÉAL SÉGUIN
      Globe and Mail, Dec. 07, 8, 2010 http://urlm.in/hoin

      “How Quebec companies’ tax-evasion schemes built a floating palace”
      DANIEL LEBLANC and LES PERREAUX
      Globe and Mail,Tuesday, Feb. 08, 2011 http://urlm.in/hoim

  3. Paul R Martin says:

    The regional stats in the Nanos Poll move all over the place. The small sample size makes them unreliable. Yesterday, the Conservatives were losing support in BC, yet today they have a big lead. Iggy made a mistake when he gave Harper another reason to talk about the coalition. Layton is a pro and successfully evaded the question when it was posed to him. Ruby Dhalla is in big trouble. I saw a photograph of Iggy, Dhalla and Bains in the online edition of the Star; however, the story was about “nannygate”.

    • smelter rat says:

      The Liberals need to remind Canadians that the reason we’re having an election is that the Cons lost the confidence of the House of Commons. I doubt they’ve done anything since then to restore any of that confidence.

      • Paul R Martin says:

        The Liberal Party keeps changing its message in this campaign. Initially it was about the loss of confidence. Now it is about health care which is primarily a Provincial responsibility. There does not seem to be a consistent story line in their campaign.

        • smelter rat says:

          They are consistently talking about the issues, unlike Harper and his goons.

          • George says:

            ah, no mr. rat it was Ignatieff himself who opened up his coalition can of worms and effectly trumped anything else today…or tomorrow.

          • smelter rat says:

            BS George. Are you familiar with our Consititution? You should check it out sometime.

        • Namesake says:

          But there is a single over-arching theme, which conbots have completely missed because they have a permanent blind spot on it:

          Stephen Harper Is ^NOT Trustworthy

    • Churchill must be rolling over in his grave.

      The fact that coalition is a dirty word is a little ridiculous given we have a British Parliamentary system of government. We get – it’s the CPC’s wedge issue but it it still doesn’t change the fact any party that wins a minority/majority still has to govern according to the BPS.

      Mr. Harper clearly understood that when he wrote THE LETTER along with Jack and Gilles in 2004. Not a little disingenuous that the BPS is being thrown under the bus today.

  4. MontrealElite says:

    Gardner’s only partially right about the AmeriCons.

    They are only socially right wing.

    Fiscally, they have become HARD left wing.

    Record deficits, buying car companies, preventing foreign takeovers, and expanding the size of government……Economic Steve-O is still a young Liberal when he sees a vote to be bought.

  5. fritz says:

    ?Why the Hell did we have an election, anyway??

    ^Easy one. So we can dump some of the current crop of leaders and hopefully get some that will get us off the treadmill we’ve been on for years.

    “The problem is that our politics have become entrenched, I think: the Cons have a lock on their 30 to 35 per cent, and everyone else fights about the remainder, for eternity.”

    ^Exactly – see why we need an election above.

  6. smelter rat says:

    I thought Margaret’s column was hilarious. Even the 35 percenter’s might get it.

  7. Lance says:

    I think it is a catch-22, a paradox: the more things look like they will stay the same, the more they will end up changing.

    Why? Because people will be extrememly pissed off to know that they did this all for nothing if we are only going to get the same Parliament that we had before. The Tories will capitalize on that sentiment the most come election day as they were the ones that have been saying all along that they never wanted this election in the first place. Now we know that is utter bullshit, we know they were gunning for one, but that is exactly how it looks. That is why Warren is right, albeit for a different reason about why pundits will end up scratching their heads as to why the Liberals felt a need to go to the polls at this time; not because things ended the same, but because the Liberals (along with the Opposition of course) defeated this government and pissed people off enough to say “no more” by giving the Tories that lusted after majority.

    • nic coivert says:

      You really ought to move to the U.S.A.

      I’m sure you’ll love their Health Care system, and the clockwork election schedule, sorry though, they still have to vote every two years.

    • Namesake says:

      re: “people will be extrememly pissed off to know that they did this all for nothing”… which you might’ve expressed as,

      “they did all this for nothing…”

      Did “all” what, though?

      Suffered through some extra TYPES of political ads for a while (and note I say “types,” because the total QUANTITY hasn’t changed, or it’s even gone down, given all the CPC / EAP / Harper Govt ads that were already running, pre-writ).

      Wasted more money? Um, no: the ongoing Gov’t advertising & expanded PMO & dep’t wide media-monitoring (and intervention) and “ethnic outreach” & 24-7 campaigning were already costing more than the election.

      Had to think about policy or the gov’t’s suitability cuz of some extra news coverage? Um, there’s not much evidence they’re actually doing that…. they’re tuning out & ignoring the news spectacularly.

      In sum, apart from the tiny minority of political junkies and actual campaigners, there’s bugger all of a burden being imposed by this election that Carper is complaining so bitterly about.

  8. Philip says:

    I agree with Warren about the entrenched voting blocks ( and Bloc). I can’t help but wonder if all the non online polling companies are fishing the same pond as it were. Calling the same broad group of people over and over again. If so it could account for extremely static polling numbers. Just wondering, the big test comes of course on May 2.
    As an aside, I like the way our guy looked into the camera and asked the viewers for a majority at the end of the Mansbridge interview. It was a small thing but those things are important. If you look at Ignatieff’s performance for the English debate to this interview, I see a huge improvement. As for Mansbridge’s questions I thought they were tough ones but fair questions. He had every right to ask them. Ignatieff handled that interview really well.

    • jack says:

      I agree. I have been called every day but 2 during the election. The odds of being randomly dialed in Alberta – estimate 1 million households in the province, all polling companies together calling maybe 300 households per day in Alberta,ok, make it 500. Even 1000 households. With that number I should be randomly called every 1000 days. To get called pretty much every day, they have almost no one responding or they are using a small lst of numbers.

      The polling gets far too much attention. It’s BS.

      • The Doctor says:

        That’s an interesting point. I’ve got this land line at home that I basically never use. These days, it’s pretty much just a collecting box for phone spam. And I’ve been getting called at least once a day, every day, by this same polling firm since the election started. I never answer, because I’m never home when they call (owing to having a job — that’s the other thing that I really wonder about with polling, but I guess the better ones make adjustments for the fact the person most likely to answer a land line at 2pm on a Wednesday is a retired senior).

    • Paul says:

      The problem is 4 elections in 7 years. This one might matter if we weren’t just at the polls a gazillion times.

      Campaigns are just noise and no one really believes anyone else will do anything different. The core voters from every camp drink their own bathwater and wonder why not everyone agrees their flavor is best. Truly a sad state of weird affairs brought to you by all the wackos on the Hill from every party. Do any of them care about Canada or is it just themselves?

      • Philip says:

        Campaigns can certainly be just “noise” and people can tune out. Your point about core voters and blind support is pretty solid, in every political camp. Yet I disagree with your comment that most people don’t expect election campaigns to deliver change. I believe most votes, and I speak in general terms here, are cast with expectation of change. Even for an incumbent.

  9. Dr.J says:

    I would like to see the polls in about a week, after the Iggy interview sinks in and with the CPC attack ad response of course…Warren, what was more alarming/annoying/astonishing was the Alfred Apps response on PP, if you haven’t seen it please do. This guy is a train wreck, repeating time after time after time that the GG has the call, which is 100% correct but he kept calling the GG “she” even after he was corrected a few times. He was literally frothing at the mouth….from my seat he was either half cut or was in the need for some new meds. He was a buffoon to say the least but comical with his spin. Everyone out there has to watch the ” Big Al Apps Flame out”…classical television….Is this the “Rosedale Liberal” you speak of sir?

    • smelter rat says:

      You mean the Ignatieff interview where he states he will follow the Canadian Constitution? Too bad your guy Harper wouldn’t make the same committment.

  10. Warren

    I know you’re a spin doctor with the hopes of motivating the Liberal base but this website

    http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

    takes averages of polls and predicts a Conservative minority. No matter the number of seats, a minority is an opening of a repeat of Ontario in 1985 with a Liberal-NDP provincial accord instead of a formal coalition.

    But then again, a wise individual once said that a week is a lifetime in politics.

    • MontrealElite says:

      We’ve been under the same circumstances for the past 5 years.

      And according the Steve-O, we emerged as the best country coming out of the recession.

      So why don’t minority parliaments work again?

      • Robin says:

        “So why don’t minority parliament work again?” Well, Stevie had a good answer to your question back in the day when he said in a 1997 interview with Paula Todd: “I think we have a political system that’s going to continue to have three or four different parties – or five different parties – and so I think parties that want to form government are going to eventually have to learn to work together.” Kinda flies in the face of what he’s been saying today about not cooperating with the other parties.

  11. cat says:

    the Dan Gardner column isn’t too bad.
    Just tuned in to SunTV and heard that something explosive’s going to come to light about Ignatieff and the Iraq war when he was in the USA. No indication of what but it might just knock Iggy’s on-again-off-again denial/acceptance of a coalition right out of the water.

    I have to give you credit for being consistent on the whole reason for this election, because that sentiment is all I’m hearing up here. Why we were thrown into it and how much money it’s wasted.

    • Ron says:

      The big “shocker” (without going into) is Iggy was involved with the planning of the Iraq war
      game changer?

      More for the NDP I think because of their stance on it from the beginning
      Layton can use it as “see he flip flops around…we’re the true alternative to the Liberals”
      and get back those floating votes that go between the NDP and Liberals

      Again it depends on how much air time it gets and more importantly
      will anybody really care?

    • JStanton says:

      … bull. You are smugly twisting your imaginings to support your Harper-groupie talking points.

      We are having an election because Mr. Harper chose to flagrantly violate our parliamentary democracy. What’s next? Will he suspend the constitution? Could happen when he stacks the Supreme Court with under-achieving toadies, like he has the Senate.

      Drive-by smears by Shun News are their bread and butter. But how substantive do they need to be to titillate their unemployed, uneducated, uninformed vacuum cleaner salesman target viewer?

      As for “all I’m hearing” [are complaints about the election], I suspect it’s a matter of all you are listening to. And the money is not “wasted”. Firstly, the freedoms provide by parliamentary democracy are cheaper than what is provided by tyranny, and, secondly, that money simply goes back into the Canadian economy, and through the magic of taxation, is once available for the next election. You Cons just don’t get how economics works.

      .

      • Namesake says:

        Cats eat their own vomit.

      • Ron says:

        Usually I don’t respond to Knuckle Heads like you J
        However seeing as your sacred leader makes it a habit to flip flop I’ll do it too (seems to work for Iggy)

        “But how substantive do they need to be to titillate their unemployed, uneducated, uninformed vacuum cleaner salesman target viewer?”

        I’m guessing by this quote you’re NOT one of the Iggy’s Elite crowd

        and as for under achieving toads
        what have you achieved in your life?
        judging by your wack job comments
        not much

    • Supernaut says:

      Just saw SUN’s “explosive” revelation – the fact that Ignatieff worked in an advisory capacity on ways to help mitigate civilian casualties and collateral damage. This hurts him HOW, exactly? Beyond that, it was posted at 7:44 AM and now approaching noon, it’s exactly nowhere in the broader news cycle. Gotta say – SUN TV’s first couple of days have turned out to be pretty limp dicked.

      • Philip says:

        It’s the typical cat and Ron show format. Provide the scary anti-Iggy Sun/QMI/PMO talking point that gets destroyed 6 minutes later by someone who access to Google and basic reading comprehension skills. They are scared shitless of what is happening on the ground now. Note that the North Dakota demon dialers are up to 9 swing risings now. Not something you do on the road to your majority now is it? That 25% undecided number is killing the Conservative Party right now. Anyone who wants more Harper has already made up their mind.

  12. Transplanted Doerite says:

    Iggy performed well on Mansbridge Warren. I was, I dare say, impressed.

    One minor, but telling moment, saw Iggy responding to Mansbridge’s question being new to politics. In response, Iggy referred to himself as “a journalist and teacher.” You could practically see the word “academic” dangling from his lips but he avoided it adroitely and moved on.

    So he’s not completely untrainable. Not quite the trained seal that Harper is, but there’s hope for him. Someday he might be able to deliver a line that will actually resonate with Joe and Jill Canuck. But that day won’t arrive before May 2.

    Go Pixies!

    • Ron says:

      I didn’t think he was that bad either
      He did seem somewhat pissed in the middle of the interview but he regained his composure

      You know what is scary for the Liberals?
      His views are more center right and could be a red tory…and I like that in him

      I like the Liberals more center a little right

      as for the academic label…well yeah he is…he spent his whole adult life there

      • Transplanted Doerite says:

        Hi Ron, yeah, I know he’s an academic, that’s why I thought it was noteworthy that he didn’t say it, because academics typically call themselves “academics” (when they are not calling themselves “Professor”)

        As a Third Way Dipper, I prefer Red Tories to Liberals

        • Ron says:

          Yeah sorry about that didn’t mean it as it reads (email)
          meant it as he really should not hide it as those are his credentials

          as for red tories and center right liberals
          yeah it’s what one prefers in terms of social and economic issues
          thanks for the discussion (some others on here should take your lead)

          Warren
          caught you on Sun Tv
          good segment
          and agree with you…Harper wanted this election also

  13. Bruce M says:

    I read the Atwood piece and it was well-written, but utter drivel. It contained all the simple-minded logic of a grade 8 student trying to please her teacher. I lost all respect for Atwood when she lobbied against SunTV, fearing a battle of wits.

    • Marc L says:

      I lost all respect for her well before that! Starting with her hysterics against NAFTA in the late 80s early 90s. And, all her other childish left-wing rants since then, of which her call to ban SunTV was just the latest example.

      • Namesake says:

        But she didn’t call for a “ban” — she just endorsed a petition protesting what appeared to be a concerted attempt by the gov’t to influence the CRTC (by messing with the board appointments, if nec.) to give it either a “must carry” (and provide on the basic package to every customer) license, which simply aren’t granted any more, and were mainly only given to those that were already broadcasting across the country before the switchover to cable & satellite, or a ‘must at least offer it in a package’ option (even if the carriers didn’t want to carry it at all, or want to bundle it with other channels and raise their rates for that bundle or force people to get a channel they didn’t sign up for).

        She hasn’t said “boo” about it once the CRTC granted it the routine ‘You can broadcast, and the cable & satellite co’s can carry it if they want to’ license.

        So you’re either simply misinformed or willingly spreading misinformation. Either way, not particularly worthy of respect, yourself.

        • Marc L says:

          Technically, you’re right, but you’re really naive if you think that’s what it’s about, especially coming from Margaret Atwood. If it was just about the type of license then why did she put the “right-wing” nature of the channel at the centre of her argument? Why was the title of the petition she signed “Stop Fox News North”, with the reference to the supposed “American-style Hate Media”. “Stopping” hate media doesn’t exactly sound like an argument over the kind of license. It sounds like a plea to ban the station outright. Do you think Margaret would have signed the same petition if it was about stopping a left-wing news channel? I don’t think so.

        • Brine says:

          Seriously?? You think it was just about the type of license?

          Where was Maggie when we were getting APTN forced down our throats on a must carry license?

      • smelter rat says:

        You can always go back to reading Ezra’s piffle.

  14. kyliep says:

    If everybody thinks the same thing, they have to be wrong. My guess is, after the Easter weekend, we’ll start to see the Conservative lead expand as those swing voters (b/w Cons and Liberals) decide they don’t want another minority and break for Harper. I say this as someone who is supporting the Liberals and would very much like to see an uptick in Liberal fortunes because I think Ignatieff is a thoughtful, eloquent person and we need more people like that in politics. But I don’t think he or his team have closed the deal with the average Canadian. I look at the health care spots you posted, Warren, and I’m thinking, this definitely plays well to those who won’t already vote for Harper but it doesn’t really make the case for someone to vote for the Liberals.

    • The Doctor says:

      I wonder about the general negativity in tone as well. I don’t know if I can recall an election where I’ve heard so many people (e.g., where I work) make spontaneous comments to me about how put off they are by the ads — all the ads, by all the parties, and their negative, juvenile tone.

      That’s why I wonder about this LPC move to go aggressively negative on Harper, the scary health care ads. the NCC quotes, etc. Isn’t the overall effect just vote suppression, which actually helps the CPC as they benefit generally from low turnout?

      I tend to agree with kyliep — attack ads on Harper undoubtedly play well with people who already dislike or distrust him, but Harper and the CPC have been attacked as scary monsters for 4 elections now, so I have trouble believing that some new anti-Harper attack ad is going to move the needle much, if at all.

      • The Doctor says:

        To wit, two news headlines from today:

        CTV News: “Ignatieff Says Harper Using Scare Tactics”

        Macleans: “John Geddes on Liberal Scare Tactics: Will They Work?”

  15. nic coivert says:

    I think Murray Dobbin had some insight into this in his article “Why Voters Appear to Accept Harper’s Contempt.” Its on rabble.ca.

    None of this scandal and underhandedness on the part of the Cons has made a huge impact because of the increased Americanization of the air waves. A majority of people are not paying attention, and when they do it is uninformed except by manipulation. Also, most of the small daily papers are Sun media and they make sure to keep a lid on these negative Reformatory stories. In my town all we get is Monte Solberg et al. Or the usual picking at Liberal scabs. The same goes for other small town/city papers. The intent is to constantly beat the Liberals down and make sure not too much anti-Harper foment develops. And it is working. In world where distraction is King all you need to do is take away traction.

    None of it bodes well for our Democracy. I don’t think it is weird, but it is tragic.

    Harper will break what he can’t control.

  16. fritz says:

    The conventional wisdom is that the ‘game changing’ events; the debates etc.; are all over and now only a big gaffe will change the outcome on May 2nd. There is still one unknown event to play out where a big gaffe could happen; the Harper interview on CBC on Thursday.

    The odds are small that Mansbridge will get Harper to say something off message let alone stupid; but it is the only opportunity that a reporter will have during the rest of the election campaign to ask Harper a followup or series of followup questions that could get him in trouble. If Harper gets frustrated, who knows, he could say something that the opposition could use. It’s happened before.

    It’s unlikely but my fingers are crossed.

    At best we get to see the smug/smarmy side of the ‘Great Leader’ on display.

  17. MontrealElite says:

    I guess Harper does not approve of Israel’s coalition government given the Likud doesn’t have the most seats.

  18. W.B. says:

    Warren, as a political pro you’re usually pretty skeptical about conventional wisdom.
    Could the polls be missing something especially the quick nightly Nanos? Is everyone taking into account the wasted western Reform/Conservative votes which skew the national numbers? Or could the pollsters be missing a group such as the youth vote which from an anecdotal viewpoint appears to be growing? It’s hard to believe Ignatieff isn’t making some inroads since he’s running a pretty strong campaign, especially compared to expectations.

    • The Other Jim says:

      There’s talk about a surge in the youth vote seemingly every election, but it never happens. The #votemob crew are the same ambitious campus politicos as always. The average youth voter doesn’t give a shit about the election and won’t show up on May 2nd. Sorry!

  19. MontrealElite says:

    Anyone aware if Nanos or any of the other polling firms call cell phones or is it just land lines?

  20. Actually, everything isn’t the same since Iggy explicitly put his cards on the table yesterday, and Jack has indicated he will be playing ball. The only reason that we did not have a Liberal NDP coalition for the past two years is because Canadians did not understand how Parliament works, (or were wilfully blinded?). Nothing will stop a Liberal minority from happening now, unless the CPC tips the balance, so even if the seat count does not change, we will likely see a Liberal minority within very short time. I predict that the new set of rascals will be somewhat better than the outgoing rascals, but Canadians had better get used to minorities, and 3 year electoral cycles

  21. James says:

    Well, no matter how you call it: coalition, cooperation, collaboration, etc. – the issue is BAAAAACK since Iggy’s interview with Peter Mansbridge yesterday. It’s front page news in today’s Globe and Mail and National Post. This makes the imperative of electing a Conservative majority stronger than ever.

    All the pro-coalitionists on the left who point to the many countries in the world with coalition governments forget an important point: Canada does not have a political tradition or pattern of coalition governments. When we elect a minority government, it is allowed to govern until it’s voted down in non-confidence, and then we simply have another election. Harper has always been correct on this matter: whoever wins the most seats forms government, period. The “Plan B” option of the opposition parties being given the chance to form government may be constitutionally legitimate but would not be popular or “saleable” in reality.

    And now Jeffrey Simpson has raised concerns about Layton in his approach with Quebec and the constitution in his Globe and Mail column today.

    • Namesake says:

      And the Prairies didn’t have a tradition of “flood of the century” every, um, few years, before, either, and yet… they’re sandbagging every year, now.

      And Stevie’s out there trying to put his finger in the dike, now, saying, stick with me, and there’ll be no more floods….

      • James says:

        Namesake I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re saying. Speak English.

        • Namesake says:

          what, you’re like a dog who only understands your master’s voice?

          Here it is, then: http://archive.tvo.org/video/119442

          (with the main point being, in a 4-party system with one siphoning off a lot of votes from QC, majorities are a thing of the past, and coalitions (loosely speaking) the way of the future, so it really doesn’t matter any more what our “traditions” have been… that’s just ‘pining for the fjords,’ at this point):

          “The way the [ruling party], I think, are eventually going to lose office, whether it’s in this election or the next one, is they’re going to fail to win a majority. They’ve basically lost Quebec and without Quebec the [ruling party] has never been a majority party in this country. And that’s where I think you’re going to face, someday, a minority parliament, with the [ruling party] maybe having the largest number of seats, and what will be the test is whether there’s then any party in opposition that’s able to form a coalition or working alliance with the others. And I think we have a political system that’s going to continue to have three or four different parties, or five different parties, and so I think parties that want to form government are going to eventually have to learn to work together.”

          http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/24/what-was-stephen-harper-thinking-in-1997/

          • James says:

            Namesake, perhaps you should rephrase your remarks and say “Liberal majorities are a thing of the past”.

            In your flawed argument about coalitions as the way of the future, you imply that the Bloc will always capture a majority of seats in Quebec. In politics, anything can change. The Bloc has actually been declining in total popular support in Quebec with every election.

            Finally, in your quote by Harper, he was talking about the Liberals, not about any “[ruling party]”.

          • Namesake says:

            But it wasn’t my argument, willfully blind one: it was Harper’s. Geez, I hope you don’t have a driver’s license; you’re a menace: you only see what you want to see.

          • James says:

            Yes it is your argument. You stated: “majorities are a things of the past, and coalitions (loosely speaking) the way of the future”. That is complete nonsense.

    • Jan says:

      Harper was prepared to form a government in 2004 without having an election.

      • James says:

        That’s neither here nor there, as nothing transpired.

        • Namesake says:

          But nothing transpired because one of them — Layton — backed out, not because your boy didn’t try; it’s very much to the point.

          So if merely attempting a coalitionist coup (because note, it was also merely an attempt in 2008, too) is enough reason not to vote for someone…

          then, gee, don’t vote at all, because ALL FOUR parties were in on such plots in 2004 and/or 2008.

          Stay home, James.

        • smelter rat says:

          Brilliant comeback. So Ignatieff’s comments yesterday mean nothing, because the future hasn’t happened yet. Love it.

          • James says:

            Namesake, you can’t put the Conservatives in the same boat as the other three parties: the Conservatives have supplanted the Libs as the country’s natural governing party. You’ll get over it one day.

            I would also argue that all the discussion about coalition has heightened people’s awareness of it and the more they think about it the more they object to it. So what happened (or, rather, did not happen) in 2004, and again in 2008, has made current talk of coalition/cooperation/collaboration “scary” to voters.

          • Namesake says:

            “the more they think about it the more they object to it.”

            Bull. It all depends on who’s asked, who’s asking, and how it’s asked (esp. on what the actual options and details are).

            E.g., one poll, just a few weeks ago, found it’s roughly 50-50 — even IF the BQ is in the mix:

            “More than half of Canadians would prefer a Liberal-NDP coalition to a Harper majority government, results of a poll for Postmedia News and Global National suggest…. Fifty-four per cent of those polled said they would favour a Liberal-NDP blend to a Harper majority.

            However, when the Bloc Quebecois is thrown into the coalition mix, support for a coalition drops to 50 per cent. A Harper majority takes the other 50 per cent.”

            http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/01/coalition-preferred-over-harper-majority-poll/

          • James says:

            Namesake: hypotheticals are always “comfortable” to people, especially in the context of a poll. Reality is different.

            Let’s suppose Harper gains some seats but is still just shy of a majority and receives, say, 42% of the popular vote. In addition, let’s say Iggy loses a handful of seats, and receives 28% popular support. So now Iggy, at 28%, suddenly has a moral case to govern by teaming up with the NDP and Bloc??? This is a complete perversion of democracy and a reversal of the will of the voters. The GG would surely call another election.

          • Robin says:

            “the Conservatives have supplanted the Libs as the country’s natural governing party” … no they haven’t. If Steve wins this election, it will likely be a minority, and thus his third in a row: that is a loser’s record. Win a majority and you still couldn’t even hold a candle to Chretien’s 3 in a row.

          • James says:

            Chretien won three majorities because of the split of the right-wing vote under two political parties; and Chretien’s “majorities” were formed with popular support only in the mid-to-high 30 per cent range. Harper’s minority governments have been strictly due to the Bloc speaking for dozens of seats in Quebec.

            Yes, the Conservatives are the new “natural governing party” – believe it or not. Tell me where are all the Liberal seats today?? The Liberals have no cross-country representation at all (especially west of Ontario), and are mainly based in the big urban centres.

          • The Doctor says:

            I don’t think the CPC has replaced the LPC as Canada’s natural governing party; the evidence isn’t there for that, and with the advent of the BQ I don’t know if it’s possible for any party to assume that mantle any more.

            But the LPC certainly can’t claim any longer to be Canada’s natural governing party with the numbers they’ve had for the last few years, and with large zones of Canada’s electoral map showing no red whatsoever.

            The LPC could get their mojo back, but that would take a lot of hard work and imagination, and probably some luck as well. As much as I instinctively dislike political Messiahs, Justin Trudeau does have the potential to be an extremely popular politician. He’s not as brainy as his dad, but he’s more physically attractive, and many of the most popular, charismatic politicians in the modern TV era have been physically attractive (John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Sarah Palin). Look at Christy Clark in BC and what she’s done to BC Liberal fortunes there.

  22. Lance says:

    This will probably knock Ignatieff off of his stride for a news cycle or two:

    http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/20/ignatieff-linked-to-iraq-war-planning

    “The Iraq war was denounced by opponents of the Bush administration around the world for its failure to obtain the approval of the UN. Ignatieff has said that if he forms a Liberal government, Canadian troops would never be used outside of Canada’s borders without the approval of the UN.”

    Watch the con/lib machines spin now, lol.

  23. jack says:

    It is also amazing to me that Soudas seems to have lied under oath in a committee meeting and that has almost no play in the msm.

    If the newspaper story is correct he met with certain people at a restaurant and then, under oath, says he did not. Now, did I read the article wrong? If not, why isn’t that a much bigger story? Even if people don’t care, it must come to light. Lying under oath undermines our entire justice system. I noticed Duceppe has publicly said he lied, and there eas limited response.

  24. dave says:

    Just to continue M Atwood’s spirit of putting it into fiction, here is a fiction that I have been thinking about:

    1. A House of Commons Committee recommends that the Speaker of the House find a Minister of the Crown in contempt of Parliament.
    The Speaker is considering the report.
    2. A Committee of the House recommends that the Speaker find the Government in Contempt of Parliament. The Speaker considers the report, and does indeed find the government in contempt of Parliament.
    3. The leader of the offical opposition stands in his place in the House of Commons and criticizes the government for showing contempt for our parliamentary democracy. The leaders of the other two opposition parties also speak, and criticize the government in severe voice.
    4. A Minister for State replies for the government, saying that the House should stop the bickering and get back to debate on the budget.
    5. The House returns to Orders of the Day, the budget debate.

    6. No election, and the contempt of parliament finding is left behind, – it is not an important enough principle to spend too much time bickering about.

    • MontrealElite says:

      yeah right

      Stephen Harper’s twisted walk back on Iraq
      The last time he was this impressed with Mideast analysis, it was George W. Bush’s

      http://www.macleans.ca/columnists/article.jsp?content=20070129_139786_139786

    • dave says:

      Hey, pretty revealing story from the Sun news media…and the very next story on the Moonlight Ladies puts it all in perspective, Sun Media, Conservatives, attitudes toward voters,…it’s all there.

      Methinks the ‘suppress the vote’ campaign is going really well.

      • George says:

        I would expect Iggy’s coalition partners to beat a hasty retreat from the LPOC partnership now. Ignatieff in his own words and in all his glorious elitism is doing him in. Too bad he’s taking the LPOC with him.
        Correction – I think that the ghost of the LPOC is what is keeping Iggy afloat not the other way around.

    • Namesake says:

      Let’s review, shall we:

      Both Harper & Ignatieff supported the U.S. invading Iraq even w/o the sanction of the UN, based on some misplaced anger over 9/11 (ignoring the fact that the true foe was Bin Laden, a Saudi working out of Afghanistan, who became a military force thanks to the support of the CIA) & some BS story about WMDs that was a total fabrication by a single source who told the West what they wanted to hear, and was coached by them on how to make it more plausible.*

      Ignatieff, a private citizen, was also consulted on how to try to minimize innocent civilian casualties in that operation.

      Harper, a leader of the Opposition, expressed no public concern about collateral damage, but did denounce the Government of Canada for its refusal to participate in that action, both in the HOC and the international press.

      When it became clear that war was a disaster and the intelligence it was premised on was completely unfounded, Ignatieff learned from the colossal mistake, apologized for his hawkish position, and has subsequently resolved never to engage in war without the sanction of the UN (barring other very good reasons like pre-existing treaties).

      Harper has since waffled on whether the war was justified or not, and has not apologized for criticizing the Libs for not joining Bush’s Coalition (!) of the Willing, and has not made a similar declaration about what circumstances he’d be willing to declare war under.

      Harper HAS declared a new war, though, just before the election, to showcase the need for the new jets he wants to buy, but without setting out a plan for minimizing civilian casualties. And within a few days, that war has already escalated beyond merely providing air cover to include active bombing missions, and there have already been civilian casualties as the result of the foreign interventions (gee, sorry, we didn’t know the rebels had captured and were using tanks…).

      And we’re supposed to be appalled by Ignatieff… why, now?

      * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/defector-admits-wmd-lies-iraq-war?CMP=twt_gu

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam

      • George says:

        earth to namesake – this just doesn’t benefit Harper dude, it benefits Layton the MOST. Did you not read Dan G.’s column about losing on both fronts? Geez do your homework. Any peacenik NDP thinking about the LPOC are just running into the waiting arms of Jack and Olivia.

        • Namesake says:

          I ignored the NDP angle both because virtually everyone on the left already knew that Ignatieff was is favour of the Iraq war, and is in favour of remaining in Afghanistan in a training capacity, so this new revelation doesn’t change anything for anyone disposed to condemn all Canadian military interventions;

          and because the actual choices for who the next PM(s) are going to be in the 41st Parliament are between the one who is eager to start new wars regardless of international authorization and without due regard for civilian casualties, and the one who is not.

          But now that you mention it, the revelation that the US Administration took Ignatieff seriously enough to consult him and that his advice was used to mitigate the casualties of war should do rather more to help his case than to hurt it, among those who acknowledge that military interventions ARE sometimes necessary. Which, yes, includes some people more inclined to support the NDP but who are willing to vote strategically to stop Harper getting a majority.

          So, go ahead… trumpet the news: while serving as the Director of the Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights, Ignatieff helped the US Government try to minimize how many innocent civilians would be killed in the Iraq War.

    • JStanton says:

      oh please.

      Harper-groupies don’t read and nor could they fathom the facts and implications of what happened. They won’t vote for any one else anyway, because Steve has made so many promises to them, and, someday, he’s sure to fulfill them… ’cause he said so.

      Liberals will continue to be impressed by Mr. Ignatieff’s credentials, although remain disappointed that he doesnt regularly point out that Mr. Harper doesnt have any.

      Dippers, well, they will be outraged, because, that’s what Dippers do. They are like Cons in that respect – but better educated, better dressed and better looking.

      So, in other words, it’s merely today’s inconsequential fodder.

      .

      .

    • Derek Pearce says:

      Cat: He was part of a committee who’s job was to advise on ways to mitigate collateral damage. If “contempt of parliament” makes voters’ eyes glaze over rather than critically examine Harper, this surely will too re Ignatieff.

  25. jack says:

    So, as I said, the question is did Soudas lie under oath to the Committee……here are some quotes from the Globe and Mail story:

    “…….Mr. Fortier told The Globe and Mail in an interview. He said he got involved after being told that Mr. Soudas discussed Mr. Abdallah’s candidacy with board members at a Montreal restaurant.”

    “However, in sworn testimony before the Commons Operations Committee in 2008, Mr. Soudas said that he “did not remember” contacting board members on the matter of Mr. Abdallah’s candidacy, and denied even meeting board members on the issue.”

    Clarification please.

  26. jack says:

    Harper was quoted today saying what Soudas did was “normal”.

  27. Bill Templeman says:

    Warren, re your message to Margaret Atwood about her piece in today’s Globe (“Stick to fiction, Maggie. This thing (the election campaign) is wierder than a novel) , check out the comments following her piece on the Globe site. Why is it that most of the post are in support of her and many of the replies are against?. Who moderates posts over there? And how do they do it? Does anyone know how many bloggers the Con War Room has on contract?

  28. fritz says:

    “that the LPC is in big trouble in Montreal.”
    “suggest that they are in real trouble.”

    ^ Or not.

  29. jack says:

    2 new videos at shitharperdid.com. Go to the website and click on “Watch our Videos”. New ones are “Canadian Women’s Favorite Pick-up Line” and “Stephen Harper is an Evil Astronaut”.

    Make them go viral!!

  30. gretschfan says:

    I don’t know if the Mansbridge interview and the minority parliament talk was the product of bad advice from LPCHQ or just a case of the leader shooting his mouth off…either way, I do not understand at all what the end game was here in getting into that discussion. As one journo said earlier about this, what Iggy says about hypothetical minority parliament configurations is probably unimportant right now, but somebody’s going to make it important.

  31. Bill Templeman says:

    Wk, I just read Gardner’s piece on the Citizen site. He claims the LPC campaigned too far left, you claim they campaigned from too far to the right. So that leaves me with these options: (1) Gardner’s right, (2) You’re right, (3) Both of you are right. (3) Isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Could the LPC been too far left on some issues and too far right on others? The mind, or at least this mind, boggles….maybe you are right afterall: This thing is indeed wierder than a novel….mea culpa.

  32. john lawson says:

    Picture Caption

    “I like this outfit — It’s not like I will ever be Prime Minister”

  33. R says:

    Jack Lyton was long in poltic and never got achieve high rank yet may be that is time for him or he never get it

    ack Layton is 60 but he look much older than 60
    instead his wife Olivia Chow is still look like when she was young

    while white man shrink faster than chineese generation when they got older
    can we blame unfairly that jack Layton health because Oilvia did not take care of her husband well
    too much to politic and power or is not
    behind each healthy man one good women standing is not work for Jack Layton

    Igntatieff is older than jack Layton but he look younger and younger look woman and look kind wife he has.

    that above photo is funny photo both when they laugh are look like each other but how young Jack layton was and how look old he is
    if you healthy you always look young for sure!
    is any doctor in the house to watch jack Layton and help him or his health or not born from mother yet?

  34. AndrewOpala says:

    No know, the guy who wears read on the landing party, is always the guy to die!

  35. AndrewOpala says:

    … And have you noticed that Olivia doesn’t age!

Leave a Reply

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


*