“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald

Of course he does

Of course. Just like the other guy who got crushed in an election, and the guy who is headed in the same direction.

Let’s not listen to anyone who actually wins elections, okay? Wouldn’t want to do that.  Let’s keeping listening to the guys who lose elections.

26 Responses to “Of course he does”

  1. JM says:

    Here’s some completely baseless speculation. I hope that I’m 100% wrong:

    2015 — Thomas Mulcair and Bob Rae fight it out over battleground Quebec and end up splitting it. Many first-term Dipper MPs get sent back to McGill to be replaced by BQ and LPCers.

    B.C. experiences a small orange wave, but it’s not enough.

    Everyone ignores Alberta, (though the NDP gain a couple of seats in Edmonton) Sask and Manitoba. So many seats just given to the Tories.

    The GTA’s outer burbs, which receive a couple of extra seats, are painted Tory blue again by razor-thin margins. Ditto much of Ontario.

    The Tories ultimately retain control over parliament, though in a minority/minor-majority territory (like yr OLP). The LPC gain some seats, the NDP lose some seats, but it’s fairly close to even for the two parties.

    Thomas Mulcair experiences a leadership challenge from Nathan Cullen (helped by Brian Topp, who noted Cullen “reminded [people] of Jack” or something to that effect) on co-operation. Cullen wins handily.

    I’m just pulling this outta my ass here, but knowing the bone-headedness of Canada’s two progressive parties, I’d put a couple bucks down on being proven partly right.

    • Gord Tulk says:

      The new election boundaries in AB pretty much guarantee that the ndp seat will be a goner.

      • DL says:

        Actually Edmonton strathcona will be probably made even safer for the NDP than it is now. AB gain a bunch of seats and so each existing seat will get reduced a bit in size. Strathcona will probably lose some outlying Tory polls and Edmonton east will probably become more NDP friendly too.

        • Gord Tulk says:

          The likely rearrangement is to see edmonton cut into pie slices with a big hunk of the conservative burbs being put in with strathcona. Bye bye ndp. (you heard it here first).

          • WesternGrit says:

            Nice! Good old fashioned Gerrymandering! Hope you’re wrong… but if not, our democracy has some serious issues. EC should be able to make these changes independently of outside interference.

          • Nic Coivert says:

            And you’re proud of this? Manipulating democracy is okay as long your side wins?

            Keep up the good work, we too can have puppet democracy.

            Look out Russia, the Canadians are coming!

          • DL says:

            YOu can make up whatever fantasies you want – it won’t happen. Redistribution in Canada tends to be a very fair and non-partisan process…if the Tories have some scheme to gerrymander the whole country – this is the first I’ve heard of it. In any case Linda Duncan won Strathcona by such a massive margin that she could easily win again no matter how the lines are redrawn.

  2. Attack! says:

    You better go to the fight (with a towel) to make sure Brazeau doesn’t actually kill Trudeau: he may be the only one in the LPC caucus willing to listen to reason on this.

  3. Sean says:

    At some point Liberals and NDP faithful have to start questioning the sincerity of their leaders, as they trounce across Canada pretending they are serious about defeating the Tories. They can waste everyone’s time with rallies and conferences, but its all about NOTHING if they don’t grow up and work together. I for one believe that anyone against merger is perfectly comfortable with a Harper majority. Over the next few years, it will be getting easier to conclude that Mulcair and Rae are both preparing their parties to loose and neither of them give a damn about this country. Why would any of the party faithful vote for these guys? Why send them money? Stay home, don’t vote, who gives a shit. The opposition is going to loose on purpose. Game over.

  4. Trevor says:

    Thank you for supporting much needed Liberal/NDP co-operation Warren. Despite Mulcair and Rae are ruling out a merger or even a pre-electoral pact, we would all do well to remember that former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada leader Peter MacKay also once emphatically proclaimed that there would be no merger with Stephen Harper’s Canadian Alliance Party…

    I personally believe that both Mulcair and Rae (and whoever is the permanent leader of the LPC) could come under unberable pressure to eithier merge outright or at least go into the 2015 federal election with a formal pre-electoral
    co-operation pact. Perhaps grassroots Liberal and NDP members should get together NOW and start an organization
    promoting this very thing.

    I don’t personally think there needs to be an outright merger though. I think an electoral alliance between the Liberals
    and NDP, and possibly the Greens would be enough to reduce the Conservative to handful of seats.

    Something for Mr Dion, Mr Iggy and Mr Rae to ponder: “Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done” -Jack Layton

  5. Chris P says:

    Warren –

    It was you that no long ago posted that at one time the Liberal Party of Canada while in power was polling at 50%. 50%! IF we had:

    a) A permanent leader
    b) had a true grassroots organization
    c) proper policy development
    d) fought on the media/marketing front as aggressively as the OLP does
    e) stopped conceding people to the Cons and NDP
    f) came out to vote instead of sitting on the sidelines
    g) unified and put past issues behind us
    h) recruited and attracted worthy candidates to run

    than I would say lets merge with the NDP. BUT the truth is we have done nor have none of this things going for us and the Liberals have been their own worst enemy. If we had done these things and than failed I would be with you but until that time were not in agreement.. I love JC as much as you do but he like you, like the Liberal party for a 100+ years didn’t achieve their success by laying down and surrendering.

    Aside from saying you were going to run for the Liberal Party in the next election (if I recall correctly) can you please get back to running the permanent war room?

  6. Tiger says:

    Well, Chretien can count. Proved that in the 1990s.

    Not so sure about the other guys.

    No action there before 2015. It’ll take at least a second Harper majority to get the leadership (in both) considering the other options.

  7. Jim Hanna says:

    I agree, and that is precisely Harper’s game plan.

    The NDP are more than just “Liberals in a hurry”. They really beleve that there is no problem out there that government can’t solve.
    I disagree. But government does have a role, and we need that balance.

    The question is do we want to risk another one or two Conservative mandates, and then regain power, or do we merge and guarantee a generation of Conservative mandates.

  8. allegra fortissima says:

    Jerry talks about Neoliberalism, a form of Liberalism that pushed the once successful German Liberals under 5% in most recent polls. Not exactly the road to a favourable outcome…

  9. Gord Tulk says:

    Went to the wiki listing for neo-liberalism. It is whacked.

    Claiming that reagan and thatcher and Friedman were neo-liberals is bizarre. None of those three would describe themselves as neo-liberal. Sounds like some kind attempt to co opt three of the great leaders of conservatism and market priciples as part of a new liberalism.

  10. bluegreenblogger says:

    I don’t think that he was actually asking what the words meant. It was more along the lines of ‘what the fuck are you babbling about??? The Liberals do not actually stand for anything quite so concrete, despite all those fifty cent words you bandy around. that is part of their problem

  11. allegra fortissima says:

    I agree, the wiki info is a bit thin. This is a better read, Mr. Tulk:


  12. Frobisher says:

    Wow. That’s just…wrong. And completely ahistorical. Friedman himself, aligned to Hayek and the Austrians as he was, freely advocated ‘Neoliberal’ policy in the late 70s- early 80s. Reagan and Thatcher were completely in thrall of Chicago School (Friedman) re: econ policy. Just because you don’t like the word ‘liberal’ doesn’t give you license to be a completely ignorant dolt. Stupid can be cute. Ignorance never is.

    You have no credibility.

  13. Gord Tulk says:


    my error. I only reached adulthood in the early eihites and had never heard of the term neo-liberalism until tonight. I googled it a little further and apparently it is essentially an antiquated term in north america – used much more in europe. So I am not the only one who no longer uses a term containing liberal when describing Thatcher, reagan, friedman et al. It has become a politically incorrect word.

  14. Realist says:

    This is a semantic argument. “Liberal” in Europe usually means something quite different from what it means here. It is much closer to the 19th-century meaning of the term: free markets, free trade, no regulation, etc. Therefore, in Europe, Thatcher and Reagan were described as neo-liberals and everybody knew what the term meant.

    To use it in a North American context just muddies things, because of the very different meaning that “liberal” has here.

  15. VC says:

    No, you just don’t understand what neoliberalism entails. Don’t rely on wikipedia for everything. No one is trying to co-opt the so-called great leaders of conservatism. Once you have a real grasp of this, you’ll realize how paranoid you are and that you can keep your neoliberal Gods.

  16. WesternGrit says:

    Most conservatives don’t have a clue what Neo-Liberalism is – since most cons haven’t passed within 50 meters of a Poli-Sci, Sociology, or Current Events classroom (or any class that might teach them a little more about the world around them for that matter). Yup, I’m being an “elitist” again. My damned edu-mucation speaking up there…

    Anyhoo… Neo-Liberalism really isn’t liberalism per-se. It is more about the actual definition of the word “liberal”, which means open to change… In this sense it means the “opening up of markets” quite literally. Neo-Liberals have been obsessed with the creation of a “global trade state” and so-called “free trade” everywhere. Harper is a Neo-Liberal – as were Bush, Thatcher, and Reagan. Mulroney too.

    Neo-Liberals tend to get the populist message fighting the “elite” out there – all the while faithfully servicing their corporate masters. There aren’t too many American politicos that are not fully “owned” by their corporate supporters – be it Big Pharma, Big FoodCos, Big Oil, etc., etc. And those “horrible” elite people – with that ‘education’ and research, just seem to get in the way. Reason – human relationships – are less important that profits for shareholders. We breed an entire class of leeches (See WorldCom, Enron, the Big Wall Street brokerages)… who exert their political influence (with cash – just look at the directors of most large corporations – find some familiar faces?). Common folk – like us – mindlessly recite the mantra that “profit is the only thing” as we are too addicted to CHEAP SHIT – rather than paying for what something is truly worth.

    Current LPC in Canada isn’t quite “Neo-Liberal”. Granted, people like Manley – who I could not STAND – were definitely of that ilk. I also think that there are some things about our relationship with the USA that most voters just don’t get – and will never learn of… unless they are elected and have access to security clearances and Privy Council status. There are certainly a lot of obligations and factors that force ANY party that comes to power in Canada to “behave” at least slightly in a Neo-Liberal way. As a federal Liberal, I look to our party to re-tool part of it’s world approach. We have to build up our domestic markets. We have to regain the friendship – and more importantly – respect of nations which look to the Canada of old for mentorship and guidance.

    Free markets are good… But we DON’T have free markets in the World right now. The US – via the World Bank and IMF – are creating a giant global Corporate Welfare State. Look at the Trillion dollar corporate bailouts in the USA, or look no further than the Alberta oilpatch to see corporate welfare in action. The reasoning will always be “profits” or “share values”, and they will always be sold with the promise of “jobs, jobs, jobs”. However, we continue to export our best paying jobs – in the manufacturing sector (textiles and clothing to Central America, South Asia, etc.; household goods to China; heavy manufacturing to East Asia or India). We pretend that we’ll have the “knowledge” jobs, or the “Service Sector” jobs, but even these jobs are being passed on out of the country. What we have left is Natural Resources. Which are notorious for being unreliably fleeting.

    Why? We like cheap shit.

    Most of us would rather buy a $5 trinket from the Walmart, made in China, than something produced by a local artisan costing twice as much – even though the local item will boost the economy, create jobs, and generally produce something of higher quality that will last twice as long – or longer. Just compare the nice Fuller screw-drivers made in Canada with the $10 toolkit screw drivers made in China that start spinning around the handle if you torque them too hard.

    Long story short… Neo-Liberalism is not “Liberalism” in the classical sense. It is likely what has so many tea-partiers so confused when they lash out at “liberals”, not realizing that their own demigods are the biggest Neo-Liberals out there.

  17. Frobisher says:

    Fripp, Belew Buford, Levin.

    “Diatribe!” Good times.

  18. james curran says:

    They weren’t losing policies. They were winners. His fault was not getting elected FIRST.

Leave a Reply