“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

There’s not much controversy surrounding it, at all, because:

  1. She said, if elected, she’d invest in transit and infrastructure, and this budget is aimed at giving effect to that; and
  2. She (and we) know that, to pay for the aforementioned, she needs to do some judicious cuts.

Voters get all of that stuff.  They therefore know she’s on the right track.  Steady as she goes.


Screen Shot 2015-04-24 at 9.18.14 AM

“The capacity of the gas chambers and the capacity of the crematoria were quite limited. Someone said that 5,000 people were processed in 24 hours but I didn’t verify this. I didn’t know,” he said. “For the sake of order we waited until train 1 was entirely processed and finished.”

I have been following the prosecution of this SS Auschwitz guard closely. His blasé recitation of serial horrors isn’t noteworthy – he was indisputably a member of the Nazi killing machine, and his apparent indifference to genocide is almost predictable, notwithstanding his much-reported sophistry about “moral guilt.”

What I find surprising, instead, is the neutral – almost disinterested – tone that some reporters and editors have adopted in covering this trial. Here, then, are some truisms that I have referred to before, in a tautological trifecta:

  • It is acceptable to take a position on notorious crimes.
  • Notorious crimes like genocide and mass murder should be condemned.
  • Condemning such notorious crimes doesn’t compromise one’s journalism, it enhances it.

The Holocaust, and the way in which it was carried out in places like Auschwitz, should not be reported on as mere allegations, as we would report on someone charged with shoplifting and appearing for the first time in provincial court.  The Holocaust is no mere allegation.  (Nor the Armenian genocide, which commenced 100 years ago today, and which gets referred to in similarly antiseptic reports.) By admitting he was there, facilitating genocide, Oskar Groening – though an old man, and no longer in uniform, and expressing regret – was a mass murderer like the rest of those bastards.  And he deserved, and deserves, their fate.

A few folks, mostly Liberals, referred me to Justin Trudeau’s response to yesterday’s federal budget. We at Daisy were all too busy actually reading the thing, so we missed his scrum, which did not impress many of my correspondents, among them formerly elected Liberals.

I honestly don’t think how the Liberal leader spoke all that problematic. And – while the talking points he used weren’t in any way new – what he said is what concerns me the most.

To make my point, I refer you to one Michael Ignatieff. As everyone knows, the Conservatives spent around $5 million to broadcast ads that promoted the notion that Ignatieff was “just visiting.” The ads worked, and dramatically so.

The anti-Iggy ads worked, in part, because of the word that was missing from the “just visiting” tag line, not the words that were actually present. The word that was missing was “Canada.” How could Michael Ignatieff profess to care for Canada – and want to lead it, and have a vision for it – when he hadn’t lived in Canada for more than thirty years?

The Conservatives, in effect, cleverly took the one word that appeared in every single sentence that Michael Ignatieff uttered – “Canada” – and rewrote its meaning. They made viewers, and voters, feel that Michael Ignatieff was completely, utterly, fundamentally unfamiliar with the very thing that Ignatieff talked about the most: Canada.

So, too, Justin Trudeau’s much-repeated “middle class” nostrum. He says “middle class” all the time, just as he did in the clip above. When in a tough spot in a scrum about the economy, for instance, he will always reach for a reassuring line or two about the “middle class.”

The problem, of course, is that many Canadians suspect that Justin Trudeau isn’t middle class. He may know how to say those words, but he’s never lived those words. And that’s clearly why, inter alia, Stephen Harper has taken to reminding Trudeau that he is a trust fund kid, and why he resents the fact that Trudeau is a charter member of the lucky sperm club. To wit: Stephen Harper’s the Tim Horton’s-loving Hockey Dad Everyman, and Justin Trudeau has never had to worry about paying the rent or putting food on the table. Ever.

Rosedale and Westmount have taken over the Liberal Party of Canada – again. And you can reasonably expect Mr. Harper to remind us about that, over and over – and Mr. Mulcair will be doing likewise.

Think I’m wrong about my “Just Visiting the Middle Class” theory? I refer you to another case of a rich guy who talked a lot about the middle class – Mitt Romney. He certainly knew how to pronounce “middle class,” but he had never experienced “middle class.” And voters voted accordingly.

I strongly suspect the Conservatives are readying to do an Ignatieff on Trudeau – they getting ready to turn Trudeau’s own words/life against him, and at precisely the wrong time, too. Just as Michael Ignatieff could not change the fact that he had lived outside Canada for three decades, Justin Trudeau can’t change the fact that he grew up at 24 Sussex, the son of a millionaire. And the Conservatives are planning to draw attention to that fact, over and over.

Will that sort of attack work? Who knows. But it sure did against Messrs. Ignatieff and Romney, didn’t it?

What’s interesting isn’t that Larry Martin has written a column about the downward slide of the Trudeau Liberalslots of the other mostly pro-Grit writers are doing likewise, these days. What’s interesting is the answers he got to his questions – from an anonymous correspondent, whose identity everyone knows.

Let’s examine some of the Senior Liberal Strategist’s claims, shall we?

  • [The Ontario Liberal government’s early age sexual education policy is] hurting the brand badly in certain ethnic communities, especially in the west 905.” This is unmitigated B.S. For one thing, it recalls the efforts of Anne McLellan to blame Dalton McGuinty’s first budget for the woes of the federal Liberals, way back in the Spring of 2004.  And, as every aspiring Liberal candidate knows, it is Justin Trudeau, not Kathleen Wynne, who has made social issues - abortion, gay marriage,  sexual harassment - an actual condition of membership. Attempting to offload the blame on a single province’s Liberal government – a government that is merely doing what Trudeau himself has previously favoured – is unfair and hypocritical.
  • “We will stick to [our strategy]. We expected the Tories would spend millions around tax time and the hockey playoffs to goose their numbers. That’s what they’re doing.” Two points, here. One, if “spending millions” on advertising was all that was required to win, Mitt Romney would be president around now. What is strategic - and this is point two – is having, you know, some ideas.  Ideas are important. And they’re particularly important when all of that aforementioned advertising is focused on promoting the notion that you don’t have any ideas, and that you’re not smart enough to be Prime Minister.
  • “The horse race numbers are not very meaningful six months before an election. Ask Tim Hudak. Or Adrian Dix. Or Pauline Marois. Or Danielle Smith.” This talking point is superficially true – polls get things wrong a lot, these days.  But that truism cuts both ways: the reality may be that Trudeau hasn’t slipped as much as the polls say – or that he has slipped even more than the polls say.  That’s not all: in the case of each of those politicians – Hudak, Dix, Marois and Smith – they lost because (a) they made a lot of verbal flubs, and/or (b) they had a big lead, and arrogantly assumed it would never go away. Remind you of anyone?

To put a fine point on it: this isn’t the McGill Debating Club, boys and girls. What matters in the Liberal Party (or used to) is actual outcomes – not, you know, how clever you sound as you anonymously debate newspaper columnists.

…so I’m promoting them on the Internet to irritate her.