“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

Dust busting

Justin isn’t substantive? Seriously? From a guy whose most notable moment in the last debate was talking about how much he enjoys vacuuming?

44 Responses to “Dust busting”

  1. Lance says:

    Well, I wouldn’t suggest that Trudeau is not substantive at all, however, Garneau is a hell of a lot more substantive by any stretch.

    • Kevin T. says:

      Iggy was very substantive too, and now he’s back to calling himself American after he was done messing himself

      I am going to go with the guy who is always underestimated and ridiculed, yet wins a Bloc seat when it counts, knocks out a dumbfuck senator when it counts, and will beat Harper when it counts.

  2. Christian says:

    I don’t really care who wins and will vote for whatever candidate/party Liberal or NDP who has the best shot at denying Harper either a majority or better yet power altogether. That being said I think Trudeau’s comments on appointing “better senators” was tone deaf to what most Canadians now think of what should be done with the senate. If he said he’d work to abolish it than I might actually care to use my Liberal membership to vote for him.

    • Ted H says:

      Abolishing the Senate isn’t going to happen overnight, the Provinces are involved in constitutional decisions. However, limiting Senate appointments to individuals who have already held elected office instead of the hacks, bagmen and partisan shills chosen by PM Harper would, I think, be more readily possible and would provide the “better Senators” that JT has mentioned.

      • dave says:

        Ted H

        Now you are forcing me to try to find out what provinces get out of having senators(especially senators who have not for ages, and do not, reside in that province).

        Maybe I won’t search…maybe I will just ask Kady.

      • Les Miller says:

        So Rob Ford qualifies, while David Suzuki does not.

        Interesting solution.

        • Ted H says:

          You pose an interesting dilemma, Rob Ford would have the basic qualification but a choice would still have to be made on quality, something that obviously (the Conservative cabinet’s favourite word) wasn’t done in the case of Senator (I use the word loosly)Brazeau.
          As for people like David Suzuki, probably a good choice, but again a policy would have to be established to ensure quality. Basing the choice on previous elected office would at least guarantee people with political instincts.

          • Les Miller says:

            But, you’re not talking about electing the Senate, so “political instincts” are useless, because that’s what they’re all about: winning elections. When we’re talking about an appointed official, the only thing I give a shit about is their committment to the people they’re supposed to be serving. That covers everything.

            I’m not a big fan of David Suzuki. However, I believe he would have made an excellent Senator. I know better than to ask that any official, elected or otherwise, agree with me politically, so all I ask it that they display a very real devotion to the job they are assigned, and the people they serve. I’m confident Suzuki would have delivered that.

            Then there’s Rob Ford. So concerned about his constituents that when caught putting their lives at risk, he shrugs his shoulders and says “I’m a busy man”.

  3. Ted B says:

    I have not seen a lot of substance from Trudeau. Bits here and there where he’s actually taken a position on an issue (reactive), but not much in terms what he would do, what policies would govern (prospetive).

    It’s his weak spot and it is a known weak spot and he needs to address it. Whether or not Garneau had much of substance to say in the last debate is entirely irrelevant to whether Trudeau is full of air or full of gold. Glib presumptions that Trudeau is so obviously so full of substance won’t cut it with the leadership race or the general public.

    If I was any other candidate, that is exactly what I would zero in on and hammer away at it. Which would be really really good for the Liberals: either it pushes Trudeau into being more substantive or it shows he actually doesn’t have it. Either way a win for the Libs so good on Garneau.

  4. Philippe says:

    Fair enough, he did talk about vacuuming – but there’s no denying the guy’s very substantive, in fact he’s all substance.

    I disagree with him though- Justin’s already taken some gutsy policy positions.

    • Ted B says:

      Other than a few, admittedly somewhat gutsy positions on issues that were presented to him (i.e. an issue in the news and he is asked by others what his position is), what policies has he pronounced and what plans has he said he will implement if PM?

      I’m not being dismissive, I’m genuinely inquiring because I am not aware of much from him that has not been reactive.

      • Bluegreenblogger says:

        It does not matter very much what policies he, or indeed any of the leadership contenders espouse. If they want to lead a Party, then it ought to be self evident that they will be running the next election on the policies that the Liberal Party develops, not whatever they could whip up around a coffee table with their campaign team. I am far more interested in what the leadership contestants will do to help the party formulate winning policies. Every politician gets into politics because they have some policy interests, but they then join a Party because it takes more than their pet policies to run a country.

        • Ted B says:

          Fine. So just pick someone who is likeable? Is that what you are suggesting? And hope that they will be good at policy? That they will come up with policies that connect with Canadians?

          For Trudeau in particular, what is driving him to be PM? What is his agenda and priorities? This was a complete unknown for Ignatieff and even Martin, and it killed them in the end. It was never an issue for Harper, even when we didn’t know exactly what policies he was going to introduce.

          That is the big black hole with Trudeau.

          And responses from most of his supporters to my earnest question only make me more concerned about this issue.

      • Philippe says:

        This was a touchy issue, even the Cons were fence-sitting. Trudeau came out first with a clear, concise position before anyone else. http://www.canada.com/Justin+Trudeau+backs+Chinese+takeover+Nexen+strengthen+economic+ties/7572659/story.html

        He also hasn’t gone knee-jerk against oil sands a la Mulclair. The easiest thing for him to do would be to cater to the anti-Alberta crowd (plays damn well in Québec), seeing as the Libs never get any Albertan seats. He did the right thing for the good of the country by not going that route & looking prime-ministerial while at it.

    • Bluegreenblogger says:

      Garneau can join the last two leaders who were all substance then. Ignatieff, and Dion. And I disagree that Trudeau has taken any strong policy positions. He has reacted to the news of the day, and really shook peoples pre-conceived notions about what he is about. And I think that is precisely the right tone. I have plenty of respect for Garneau, but he is dead wrong in this instance.

  5. Brad Young says:

    Nobody lacks substance more than Steve Harper. Unless anger, sneakiness and shallowness counts as substance.

    • Les Miller says:

      I think you’re forgetting at least one thing. Seven years experience as the Prime Minister of Canada. Like it or not, that’s pretty damned substantive.

      • GregB says:

        And their mantra is ‘the economy and jobs’, and that’s what will stick in the short attention span minds of the finicky voters. Garneau is going for broke because he knows Justin is winning the ‘popularity’ contest within the Liberal party and Canadians in general. Justin’s popularity strength is so great the other candidates might as well drop out now instead of prolonging the obvious.

        Liberal leadership contest has gone from debate to interview to irrelevance. Garneau is doing the right thing in challenging Justin to an in-depth policy debate in order to shatter the popularity contest facade. I mean, who cares now if it’s only a popularity contest?

        • Les Miller says:

          I don’t agree at all that the Liberal leadership race has become irrelevant. I find it captivating, and I believe a lot of Canadians would agree with me, though perhaps not with my distaste for Justin Trudeau. It’s still unlikely that I’d vote for them, but I think they’re doing a great job of re-inventing themselves as a party that all Canadians can at least consider voting for.

          If I were an NDP supporter, I’d be very, very worried.

  6. Bluegreenblogger says:

    Thanks Garneau, but IMHO it is the job of the Party to produce well researched policy, not the coterie surrounding each contender. I am intersted in what some of the policy experts have to say, sure but the Leader needs to demonstrate Leadership skills. Such as:
    Communications skills, ability to build a winning team, ability to raise funds, willingness to let the Party do what party’s do best (formulate policy). Have a look at the last three full time leaders of the Liberal Party. Martin lost everything, arguably because he was focussed on policy trivia and living in a bubble of Martinites. (Mr. Dithers was a telling sobriquet because it had the ring of truth) Dion, sharpest policy tool in the Liberal Drawer, but close to incoherent (In English anyway), and Ignatieff, a total policy buff, who had little or no political skills to work with. It is useful to bring a few policies to the table, but a comprehensive platform? NO THANK YOU. Now I would be interested in knowing more about how the contenders would promote policy formulation within the Party……

    • GregB says:

      I respectfully disagree with leaving the Liberal party to produce researched policy. Liberals are looking for a leader who will lead them and be respected for his policy beliefs. The Liberal party currently has no recognizable policy position, and that is what Garneau is telling us — Canadians don’t know what Liberals stand for. Surely being popular is not enough to swing an election.

      Besides, Justin is winning solely on ‘popularity’, so in desperation, Garneau must play the ‘policy card’ to derail Justin’s train. It’s a good move by Garneau even though it is in desperation.

      • Scot says:

        Policy shmolicy. I’ll vote for any Liberal who can win. These cons nowadays are repulsive and need to be crushed.

        • Philip says:

          Win what? As it stands now, Justin is a shoo-in for leader unless Garneau can create some chaos to destabilize Justin’s popularity within the party. What concerns me is how the devious Cons would attack Justin in a general election with their vicious attack ads.

          I see Justin as a big Red Liberal Balloon that can be easily pricked and deflated, whereas Garneau is as solid as a rock. Would the Cons dare attack Canada’s first astronaut? Or would the Cons prefer to shred Justin’s speckled pre-political past and cast doubt on his immature leadership capabilities?

          Take off your rose coloured glasses and answer those questions.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            If the news Liberal leader was called Jesus Christ, the Conservatives would still give him the Dion-Ignatieff ad treatment. That is the only thing that is entirely predictable about the Conservative Party’s electoral machine.

        • Lance says:

          Who cares what he stands for (if anything); damn the torpedoes!

      • bluegreenblogger says:

        Trudeau has said as much about policy as he ought to. He isn’t hiding his opinions, he just is not delivering a policy tome. The reason why nobody knows what the Liberal Party policy positions are, is because the leadership has ignored the party’s policies for several decades now. Election platforms get created on the fly it seems, and the Party itself has very little to do with them. The rejuvenation of the Liberal Party after Turner was not solely because of Chretien’s cunning, there was also a whole lot of policy work done in the lead-up to Chretiens first electoral win. The next federal election is probably 2 years away, and the next liberal Leader needs to help rebuild from the riding level, policy, internal management, the whole nine yards. It doesn`t matter one iota what the next leaders policy intersts are, UNLESS they are dramatically different from liberal Party policy, because the organisation does not exist to `sell it` to the electorate. So Joyce is all about policy, because she is saying something dramatically different. Good for her, and totally appropriate. She will not win, but then again, she never expected to. Martha has staked out a position regarding supply management, well that is tickety boo, it is defining for her because she is chucking a sacred cow on the BBQ. Again, appropriate, if insufficient reason to give her the top job. Takach and his digital bill of rights, well it is an interesting experiment, I hope he wins over thousands of supporters, because what he is doing is actually innovative. Trudeau, and Garneau ( and Martha) are the real contenders though, so their leadership qualities are far more important than any amount of policy.

  7. dillon says:

    a debate 1 on 1 ,Trudeau and anyone else would answer the question. Why is he afraid to debate an issue? im my opinion intellectually he is a lightweight. Takes after his mother.

  8. GregB says:

    Justin may be a great boxing pugilist, but now Garneau has landed a political pugilist blow that is intended to knock Justin out of the ring. It’s put up or shut up time amongst the leadership hopefuls now because Garneau is coming out swinging.

    As for Marc’s enjoyment to vacuum and cook, you must understand where he’s coming from. He’s an engineer (with a doctorate degree) and vacuuming is simply ‘maintenance’ while cooking is obviously ‘construction’, in the analytical mind of a distinguished engineer!

    I would have more confidence in a Garneau leadership simply because he is an accomplished and organized man who can easily lead the Liberal party in a competent manner. Not Trudeau.

  9. tfalcone86 says:

    Just like every other race for the leadership, this one comes down to organization: who can sign up the most new Liberal members and supporters, and ensure they vote during election week. That is it. Trudeau’s organization is by far the best. He’ll win on the first ballot and believe me, it isn’t going to be close.

    All this debate talk and everything else, is to present some mainstream media coverage to the general public. Its also quite clear, that Trudeau is the most popular politician in the country right now, from coast to coast to coast. Harper et al included.

    • Philip says:

      But will the old Liberal party veterans follow a Trudeau leadership, or will more abandon ship like they did after Martin departed? Trudeau is promoting generational change within the Liberal party, and that will cast doubt on all the Liberal veteran politicians currently in the House of Commons. How can Justin proclaim generational change if he still embraces the old Liberals going into the 2015 election? He can’t, and that’s why a split is occurring in the party. Justin is not the unity leadership candidate; he’s the ‘clean out the barn’ young Liberal.

    • Kip says:

      Agree re: organization, but you reminded me of something: doesn’t a preferential ballot mean that there will be only one round of voting? Also curious about how the announcement is going to be made … all the candidates on stage for the results? Awk-ward.

  10. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    First is a nice place to be. Second and beyond is barely endurable. Garneau and a few others necessarily have to take the gloves off to become relevant. But you have to really pick your battles and you have to do it sparingly. Take that punch but make it count. Otherwise, you’ve wasted your time. The punch has to show why you are, by far, the best person for the job — all things considered.

    If you miss that mark, you are done.

  11. Lance says:

    As opposed to Trudeau who WILL win, but whose campaign team has stated that having people under 40 in his inner cirlce would be undesireable.

  12. Philip says:

    Are you suggesting that there will be a generational schism within the ranks of the Liberal party — out with the old and in with the new under a Trudeau leadership? Isn’t that somewhat drastic and destabilizing politically?

    Yes, Justin offers renewal and hope, while Garneau offers wisdom and a measure of unity. What will voting Canadians prefer from a Liberal government, hope or stability from the Liberals in 2015?

  13. Scot says:

    Just like his dad had us.

  14. Scot says:

    They would prefer to win Philip and that’s what Trudeau can do. garneau is like pablum, no fire in the belly.

  15. Jon Powers says:

    Garneau is an astronaut. Trudeau is a space cadet. The choice should be clear. But you’ll probably vote for the cuter one with better hair….

Leave a Reply