Daisy Group

“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



  • Based on the number of comments, and based on the amount of coverage, I don’t think a lot of people paid attention to that final debate last night.  My hunch? Joe and Jane Frontporch are sick of this election.  They want it to be over.  They started paying attention after Labour Day, and now they think they’ve seen more than enough to make a decision.  And what have they decided? See below, following my roundup of some of your (very few) comments on Face à face.
  • Nicole: At a debate where four men and no woman spent a lot of time talking about how a woman should dress, reminding the public of [Trudeau's] clear support of a woman’s right to control her body will attract votes, especially from women. That is, in addition to those who would already support him because he has nice hair.
  • Dean: Mulcair’s “all the leaders are against women wearing the niqab” did it for me. i’m done with the ndp forever. i was frustrated at trudeau for suggesting it was only immigrated women who wore the niqab, but mulcair’s complete disrespect and inability to see it as a choice did me in…maybe i am unique in that i have female friends who took to the niqab later in life and are very vocal about how much of a choice it was…but – giving him the benefit of the doubt that he does not truly believe what he says, i’ve conlcluded mulcair will say anything to win.
  • Vancouverois:  I somehow blanked out the most annoying moment of all — when Mulcair had the gall to talk about how you shouldn’t target a particular group, when as a Quebec Liberal he’s spent HIS ENTIRE POLITICAL CAREER helping the slow separatists (oh, sorry: Quebec nationalists) target the anglophone community of Quebec. The hypocrisy of it left me speechless with rage.
  • Luke: I can’t have been bothered to watch this. From the Com’s synopsis, sounds to me like Harper must be a happy man. Trudeau and Mulcair pounding on the stupid niqab debate allows to Conservatives to continue to frame the debate around a topic they judge to be to their benefit. NDP and Liberals need to stop letter the Conservatives set the agenda and do so themselves. If they keep letting this happen, Harper wins. Again. Goddamnit.
  • Fan590: JT continues to steam roll Harper and Mulcair.  He’s ready for the job.
  • Al in Cranbrook: Why is it so hard for moderators to simply ask a question without editorializing? And why is it that just about every segment ends with Harper being cut off before he can answer some outlandish accusation? Really getting tired of this crap.
  • Mike: My ears are starting to hurt from all the dog whistling going on.
  • And…that’s about it.  Lots of comments under that open thread, but not many comments on the actual debate.  But you want my take? I put it on Twitter, and I agree with Luke, above.  I even wrote a book about the subject: conservatives are way better at emotion-laden “values” stuff than progressives.  We progressives get tongue-tied when the subject-matter is values.  That is fatal, because political decision-making is governed by emotion, not intellect – the gut, not the head.  Despite having a smaller vote base – in Canada, in Europe – conservatives keep winning because they always steer the debate to emotional stuff, not pointy-headed intellectual stuff.  Emotion > Intellect.
  • The result? Check out Ekos this morning. I personally trust Frank Graves more than Nanos or many of the others.  Frank is no CPC shill – he is a progressive in his heart; he isn’t out to do the CPC any favours, believe me.  And, thusly, look what he has come up with, here and below. Key takeaways:
  • The Conservatives have been in the Number One spot for 15 consecutive days.
  • The Conservatives lead in every part of the country, save Quebec and the Atlantic.  And they are surprisingly strong in Quebec.
  • The Conservatives are now in the same range that they were at this point in 2011.  And we all know how all that turned out.
  • This slide tells the story.  Read it and weep, progressive friends.  Harper’s guys are smart. They threw out some values bait – niqab, barbaric practices, stripping citizenship – and progressives fell for it, hook line and sinker.  Like the great Romeo LeBlanc once memorably said to me: When hunting bear, don’t get distracted by rabbit tracks.
  • Progressives got distracted by rabbit tracks. Again.


Look, I’m sorry. I’ve reached Maximum Niqab Debate™ and so the Missus and Daughter Two and me are going to go cheer for the marooning of Matt Damon on Mars. (It’s his punishment for inflicting Ben Affleck on an undeserving world.)

So, as before, open thread. Add your comments and some of the best will form tomorrow’s KCCCC!

On y va!

Tito’s a great friend, and Prime Minister Turner’s support of him is a big deal.  Come to a fun fundraiser and meet a couple of the greats.


This NME list is pretty good. A bit Brit-centric, but pretty good.

The inclusion of ‘Ceremony’ surprised me. It was played the first time by Joy Division, just days before Ian Curtis killed himself. When New Order returned to it, it was a risk, but it paid off. It is – in my humble estimation – one of the greatest songs ever written. As Harold, Chris, Ryan et al. will tell you, it was a big, big deal to me, back in those days.

Here they are playing it in 1981, with Bernard singing like Ian would, but not quite pulling it off. A more raucous version, when they were older, is here. Ian’s, here.

Here it is. Sends me right back, man oh man. Lyrics below.

This is why events unnerve me,
They find it all, a different story,
Notice whom for wheels are turning,
Turn again and turn towards this time,
All she ask’s the strength to hold me,
Then again the same old story,
Word will travel, oh so quickly,
Travel first and lean towards this time.

Oh, I’ll break them down, no mercy shown,
Heaven knows, it’s got to be this time,
Watching her, these things she said,
The times she cried,
Too frail to wake this time.

Oh, I’ll break them down, no mercy shown,
Heaven knows, it’s got to be this time,
Avenues all lined with trees,
Picture me and then you start watching,
Watching forever, forever,
Watching love grow, forever,
Letting me know, forever.


  • Understand the polls? Me neither.  Let me elucidate my fuzzification.
  • Ekos: Their latest poll said Conservatives had “swung into the lead,” with a ten-point gap favouring Stephen Harper. Here.
  • Forum: Their latest “poll” has Harper at 34 per cent, and the Messrs. Trudeau and Mulcair tied at 27 per cent. Here.
  • ARG: Reid released one yesterday that validated Ekos/Forum, apparently, and even found exactly the same thing as Forum.  Here.
  • But. But, along comes Nanos this chilly morn, with their buckets and power index and other stuff no one understands, and they have the Liberals two points over the Conservatives, and the New Democrats way back. Here. Ditto Leger, who should stick to Quebec, found here.
  • What’s it all mean, Virginia? Well, they are media polls, being presented to you free of charge.  They are generally worth what you pay for them – which is nothing. In a tight race, freebie horserace/topline polls with a sample size of six close relatives are wildly inaccurate, 21 times out of 20.  Give or take. Blame Blue Rodeo – I certainly do.
  • So, the only thing they suggest, for sure, is that the New Democrats are in a spot of trouble.  And, yes, the Dippers have dipped in Quebec.  But if you look at their overall TROC numbers, they’re mostly where they were in 2011.  What should interest (and concern) everyone is the rapid growth of the Bloc, seen fleetingly in that aforementioned Leger, here.
  • What should the New Democrats do about that? Well, as a public service, I solve the puzzle for them in next week’s Hill Times column.  But one thing they might consider is this. And, of course, an effective final debate by Mulcair tonight, as several others have recommended.  (Would that work? Let’s put it this way: would you watch another political debate on a Friday night? Exactly.)
  • Until tomorrow, and until I am drafted to run for the Rhino Party, I offer this blanket statement.  Good night and God bless.

Researching next week’s Hill Times column, it occurred to me that I should look at one of my old books, The War Room. I think I found a passage there that the play-it-safe Mulcair NDP should have heeded, but didn’t.

 To the meek goes no reward. 

“God gave us all necks so we can stick them out. Voters — and consumers, and citizens, and the news media, and just about any sentient being — are astute. They know when you are playing it safe. They know when you are being timid. When they sense you are being deliberately boring, they tune you out, sometimes permanently. Or, even worse, they will conclude that you are hiding something, that you have the much-feared “hidden agenda,” and that you are accordingly dishonest. In politics, at least, it’s a paradox: taking no risks is in itself risky. So, in your campaign for votes or sales or support, it’s okay to occasionally take a few risks. Be a bit louder, be a bit faster, be a bit funny, be a bit more aggressive. Most of all, be more creative. You won’t always win, but one thing is for sure. You’ll never win if you don’t try.”

A friend of mine has been strenuously advocating for Royal Canadian Legion Poppy Funds – to help veterans with Post Tramautic Stress Injury, and to get them a specially-trained therapeutic service dog. You can read all about it, and help him, here.


  • Frank Robinson said that. “Close don’t count in baseball.  Only counts in horseshoes and grenades.”  But what about politics? Does close count in the political game?
  • Well, how close are they?  Ekos, which I take seriously, said a few days ago that the Conservatives had “swung into the lead,” with nearly ten-points over the Liberals and the New Democrats.  Forum, which I don’t take seriously, said substantially the same thing this morning, on the Star’s front page: the CPC has “a clear lead” in the race, now, with Stephen Harper’s party at 34 per cent support, and the other two guys enthusiastically ripping at each other, seven points back. Other media polls, like Nanos, say the Tories and the Grits are tied. But forget about all that: let me continue with my baseball-based analysis, because God knows politics wouldn’t be politics if we didn’t try to explain it all the time with mostly-irrelevant sports analogies.
  • What impact does the Jay’s pennant win have on the proceedings?  I ask this question as a Red Sox fan, too: do the surging Blue Jays make everyone feel good, and want to vote a certain way?  God knows the country is gripped with B.J. fever, as it were: I saw countless Jays’ caps in recent days, even up in the Yukon.
  • One sharp-eyed reader, James Calhoun, offered a theory.  I present it to you in full, below.
  • Hello all, I’m a lurker here, (and a Tory voter in the suburbs of BC) and I’ve really enjoyed reading the vast majority of the comments on this blog: they’re literate, literary and astute. I wish all political discussions were as interesting as what appears here. Okay…enough smoke blowing….I have a question/premise I wanted your collective opinion on – does the success of the Jays have a potential effect on the election? If they get through the first round there is going to be wall to wall coverage of them across the country. I’m already seeing way more baseball in my twitter/facebook feeds, and I imagine it will seriously bump the election from the front pages (or whatever the online equivalent is) as we all jump on the bandwagon. If the first opponent were New York, and the Jays managed to beat them the nation will be thrilled. And not as engaged with the election as they might otherwise be.Round two of the playoffs would then see the Jays play on Saturday the 17th and the day of the election, being games two and three of the series. I think this scenario has got to drive down the turnout, as extremely casual voters will be rushing home to watch the game, not queue at polling stations.This would seem to make the organization to get out the vote to the early ballots even more critical than usual. Is that fair? I’d also suggest this will skew the voting patterns even more in favour of older voters, as younger ones who aren’t especially engaged skip the vote for the game. I’m trying to think of other cultural/sporting events that captured/distracted the entire nation’s attention for (potentially) the last two weeks of an election. I’m flummoxed. Any precedents? Thoughts? Cheers,James (Oh, and I wish you lot had picked the astronaut. You’d have had my vote.)
  • So, what about James’ theory, folks? Now, I don’t like that James used the “blog” appellation, but I will forgive him this once.  What do you think? Is it possible that a bunch of grown men playing a little kids’ game could somehow affect the election outcome?
  • While you think about that, here’s one from the aforementioned Star archives.  I love the juxtaposition of a political campaign and baseball.  And how did that one turn out, after September 1993? I remember well.

Screen Shot 2015-10-01 at 8.12.46 AM