A couple nice young fellows from The Mark came by to interview me a few days ago.  Their interview went up yesterday, whilst I was in Ottawa for the Chretien portrait event.

They’ve brooken it up in two segments, on “wedge politics” and the Ignatieff dinner in Toronto.

Comments (8)

Comments (13)

• Stephen Harper has “grit”? Barf me with a spoon.  Chrétien won – over and over – because the people liked him (and majority-less Harper, mostly, they don’t).  He won because people trusted him (Harper, mostly, they don’t).  He won because he knew Canadian values (Harper – on issues like invading Iraq, abortion, accountability, environment, culture, democracy,  and stuff like prorogation – doesn’t).  He won because he loved Canada, and average Canadians, too (Harper, the tired Tim Hortons pretence to the contrary, can’t even say he loves Canada).  And so on.
• Alberta Libs have the Big Mo. They do, they do.  And my former editor Gillian – who was one of the best bosses I ever had (most were women, too) – is wrong.  With the right-wing fracturing in two, my home province’s Grits can take advantage of that, just like Chrétien did in 1993.  I’m not necessarily saying they’ll win – but I am saying (and said at their convention, last week) that they can hugely benefit from the right-wing split.
• Liberal leadership: I think Harris’ story is overstated.  He contacted me last week, and asked me what I thought Michael Ignatieff would think about that Ekos poll.  I said:  “I don’t think it will make him very happy.”  (I state the obvious.  Guilty as charged.) I have also told whomever would listen that Opposition – for Chrétien, for McGuinty, for Harper – completely, totally sucked. All three had unhappy times on the Opposition benches, and all three were written off by the media as well as elements within their own parties.  But all three ended up doing okay, didn’t they?
• Chrétien and Harper! As critical as I have been of Stephen Harper – and, frankly, that’s kind of predictable as long as I am obliged to sue him and his party for libel (and as predictable as it is that I’m going to win) – it is very nice of him to participate in the aforementioned hanging of Jean Chrétien.  (And I’ll go out on a limb, and bet he jokes about that!)  See you this afternoon in Ottawa.

Comments (26)

I’ll be seeing some of these guys tomorrow, at the unveiling of The Bosses’ portrait. Left to right: Romeo Leblanc, Joan Lajeunesse, Randy McCauley, Marc Laframboise, Bruce Hartley and me, October 1993. Photo by Carisse, bien sur.

Comments (9)

I like it.

“@natnewswatch: Coalition soldiers Chretien and Broadbent reportedly holding talks… according to Chantal Hebert #cdnpoli”

Comments (14)

Me and my boys are up at the cabin. The weather is just amazing. We’ve watched ‘Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,’ which is a documentary about my middle son.

Here is a scene which is engineered to make every human smile. Have a good one!

a>

Comments (8)

The documents show that Mr. Marin – the province’s most prominent watchdog who spends his days holding everyone else to a high ethical standard – had taxpayers pick up the tab for personal grooming products, including Adidas body wash ($6.99), Degree deodorant ($4.49) and Gillette Fusion After Shave Balm ($7.99).

And:

But taxpayers didn’t just foot the bill for small-ticket items. They also paid for a 37-inch flat-screen television for his home office in Ottawa. The tab, including a high-definition cable box and wall mount: $1,965.97.

And:

…Braun battery-powered toothbrush ($37.99), Lubriderm lotion ($9.99) and Gillette Fusion Power razor ($17.99) all purchased back in 2006 for his office washroom.

And:

Revelations over his expenses come at an awkward time for Mr. Marin, who was paid a salary of $216,000 last year.

And, the kicker:

Mr. Marin expressed frustration that his expense records were handed to The Globe and suggested he might have been too trusting when former employees were forced to resign. Maybe we should have frisked some of them on their way out, because they obviously left with records,” he said.

Here’s some free media advice, Mr. Body Wash: practice what you preach. Don’t be a bloody hypocrite. Let he who is without stone toss the first container of After Shave Balm, etc.

Can you imagine what this character would have said if someone he’d been investigating over expenditures had said they “should have frisked [departing employees] on their way out?” Hell, he would have launched an investigation into that.

I’m a proud Ontario Liberal, and I can reveal that no one at Queen’s Park – no one – has ever complained to me about Mr. Body Wash, or even suggested I criticize him in any way. No one. There is no vast OLP conspiracy against him – because his worst enemy has always been the preening, narcissistic, solipsistic (but nicely-shaved) mug he sees in the bathroom mirror every morning.

So what I say to him comes straight from me, a taxpayer.

You’re a sucky baby, pal. And pay for your own goddamned body wash, okay?

UPDATE: Con nobody John Yakabuski has issued a press release deploring the above post and, um, me. Do you think it may be because I never pass up an opportunity to note that John is a law breaker and a puffed-up hypocrite?

Comments (20)

Comments (4)

I could try and spin Ekos’ poll showing a ten-point spread, but I won’t.  (I will say, however, that it certainly puts to rest the notion that Frank Graves is a Liberal Party staffer, doesn’t it?)

The news for Liberals is bad.  This is as low, or lower, than we were with Stephane Dion.

But the paradox is that, for the Reformatories, it’s bad, too. The bottom may be falling out of Grit support, but the Cons aren’t benefitting from that – and, in fact, they remain far, far from majority government territory.  The Dippers, meanwhile, are probably wondering what they’re doing wrong, too.

Bottom line?  Looks like the None Of The Above Party is the dominant choice in Canadian politics.

What’s your view?

Comments (62)

Let’s now see you tell the entire Province of Quebec to “shut the fuck up,” Mr. Tough Guy:

Quebec to Harper: enough with the ambiguity over abortion (Abortion-Flap-Quebec)
Source: The Canadian Press
May 19, 2010 17:13

MONTREAL –  The Quebec legislature has taken aim at the Harper government over abortion and demanded a clear expression of support for a woman’s right to choose.

With that, a debate that remained largely dormant in national politics for over two decades suddenly threatens to become a federal-provincial issue.

Politicians on both sides of the legislature unanimously adopted, by a margin of 109-0, a pro-choice motion Wednesday.

The motion demands that the federal government continue to respect free access to abortion, end its “ambiguity” on the issue, and stop cutting funding to women’s groups that favour abortion.

But a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted the government would not be drawn into a debate over abortion.

“The prime minister has consistently said throughout his political career, before we formed the government and even after, that our government will not initiate or support legislation that reopens the debate on abortion,” said Dimitri Soudas.

While the Harper government has repeatedly promised not to introduce abortion legislation, its refusal to fund abortions as part of a G8 maternal-health initiative is among several recent events that reopened a debate that had been largely absent from federal politics since the late 1980s.

Opponents say they fear a repeat of the strategy being used to kill the gun registry, where a backbench MP introduces a bill with widespread support from the government.

Comments (20)