“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!”
That’s me and my gal before the Red Sox game this week. She makes me pretty happy.
She is smart and sensitive and strategic and strong and sexy. She is brilliant and beautiful. She is fun and funny and fabulous. She is my best friend, and she still takes my breath away when she walks in the room.
In a few hours we get hitched, with all our six kids and family and friends and assorted punk rockers there for the party. Wish all of you were, too.
Deyz Nutz: The fictional presidential candidate is the only politician I’ve heard my kids talking about. They think it’s hilarious. Having helped run a fictional candidate for Calgary’s St. Bonaventure Jr. High student council in 1976 – Herbie Schwartz – it’s hard for me to give them lectures about the solemnity or the dignity of the democratic process. Oh, and Herbie won in a landslide.
Heard directly from Glen McGregor: “For the record, I’m not sure why you think I detest you.” Says the charming guy who gave out my home address for neo-Nazis to clip and save, blocks me on Twitter, is (according to several of his colleagues in the Hot Room) hatefully obsessed with Yours Truly, etc. etc. Anyway, if I get half a chance, I’ll sue his ass. Will pay for the wedding!
Will the Dipper bubble burst? Reading this, you would have a tendency to doubt that. However, every campaigner I’ve spoken to has told me that all of this is the pre-season, and nothing is going to be happening until after Labor Day. So, we shall see.
The Duffy trial is still happening! And most of us still don’t care! Sorry, Official Ottawa!
Are polls for the birds? Well, some say they are. Personally, I think we have some outstanding posters in this country, people who are ethical and methodical. Ipsos, Nanos, Abacus, Mainstreet, et al., are among the best in the world, and we are well-served by them, methodological challenges notwithstanding.
That’s Glen McGregor, up there. We are not huge fans of each other.
He’s apparently poking around, at the moment, asking questions about federal aboriginal work I’m doing. I’ve done work for DIAND/AANDC for years, through three Prime Ministers and several ministers. I’m proud of it.
How his editors could ever agree to assign Glen to do a story about Warren Kinsella is a bit of a mystery, but what can you do? Besides, I have a wedding to get ready for in 24 hours, and I’m determined this jerk won’t get away with what he clearly wants to do, which is wreck it.
Why does he detest me? Various reasons. He published my home address in Frank magazine, after I wrote Web of Hate, thereby making it easier for neo-Nazis to find me and my family. He didn’t like it when I complained about that, afterwards.
Anyway, for old time’s sake, here’s a post I did about Glen almost exactly two years ago. I’ll bet he didn’t like this one, either.
I owe Glen McGregor a clarification, and perhaps even a correction. But I owe readers some context.
First, the clarification/correction. Back in June, McGregor – formerly of Frank Magazine, presently of the Ottawa Citizen – asked MP Eve Adams about expensing hair care products during the last election. Adams responded (smartly, I thought) on Twitter, and out in the open.
Later, McGregor decided to ask another MP, Michelle Rempel – who, like Adams, is young, telegenic, Conservative and female – about whether she also expensed hair care products. McGregor asked Rempel the question in the House of Commons foyer, as she was walking past.
Rempel kept walking, but then sharply turned and addressed McGregor. She was “not amused” by McGregor’s question, he later admitted. She asked McGregor if he had asked any of her male colleagues the same question. McGregor – perhaps feeling sheepish, perhaps not – acknowledged that Rempel’s question was “fair.” So he found some male MPs to ask the question.
Rempel later tweeted: “Thank you Glen, on behalf of all women in this place, for singling me out on first instance to ask me to comment on hair product expenses. In doing so, you no doubt, have inspired more women to run for office. And since you asked me to opine on this particular question, rather than my opinion on policy of the day, the answer is no.”
When I heard about how McGregor had dealt with Rempel, I thought it was plainly sexist. So did plenty of others, whether Conservatives or not. I also thought Rempel (like Adams) dealt with him in precisely the right way.
This week, I wrote a column about sexism in politics. I cited a number of examples. In one, I wrote that McGregor had asked Rempel about the hair care products she uses. McGregor read that, and called the Sun to demand a correction. He deserves one: he didn’t ask Rempel about the hair care products she uses. In fact, he asked her about expensing the hair care products she uses. So, again, I apologize unreservedly to Glen McGregor for my error.
I won’t apologize, however, for expressing the opinion that his question to Rempel was sexist. I still think it was, whether it was about hair care expenses or not. Rempel apparently thought the question was sexist, too. Her tweet makes that pretty clear, I think.
Now, here’s where the context part comes in.
Glen McGregor is one of the most ardent critics of Sun News. He tweets and writes critical stuff about the conservative TV network more than any other reporter, I would think.
McGregor is also no fan of Yours Truly. Back when he was with Frank magazine, and when me and my then-wife were the target of neo-Nazi threats because of a book I’d written, the magazine published our home address. The Ottawa Police said our lives had been placed in danger as a result. Later on, when we separated, McGregor wrote to me and said I was “silly” because I had objected to the fact that he knew details about our divorce, and was seemingly interested in publishing them.
More generally, I think Glen McGregor is a real piece of work. He was at Frank when the magazine published its now-infamous “Deflower Caroline Mulroney” contest. At the time, Mulroney was a teenager. When her father (appropriately, I thought) admitted he’d contemplated taking a baseball bat to McGregor and crew for their “contest,” a member of McGregor’s family said that Glen was owed an apology.
Anyway, that’s the context. A picture of Glen McGregor – a former strip club disk jockey – emerges out of all that. It says a lot more than I ever could.
But is he owed a correction and apology for my big error? Yes, he is.
Now, he can clip it out, and put it in a file next to the “Deflower Caroline Mulroney” contest stuff.
A loose cannon: Noun - a person who cannot be controlled and who does or says things that cause problems, embarrassment, etc., for others
There are a few rolling around on deck, today. Now, of course, whether someone is a “loose cannon” or not is quite subjective. It is in the eye of the cannon beholder, you might say. I’ve been called one, in my day. But I believe that you sometimes need to take big risks, in order to score on an opponent. Like with this trip down memory lane. (My good pal Jon Kay said I won the 2000 election with that stunt, but that isn’t true. Anyway, I digress.)
Donald Trump is the Father of all Loose Cannons. But he’s using his enhanced loose cannon status to win the Republican race and now, look quite competitive with the Democratic Party front runner. To wit, being a loose cannon can raise all boats just as much as it can sink all boats. Trump is proving that, at a historic level. However much he is a racist piece of human garbage, he’s doing it.
Loose cannons roll around on the deck, sure. But sometimes they can score a direct hit on the other side, too. As Chrétien used to say me: “If you don’t try, you won’t lose. But if you do try, you might win.” Fire!
And then I thought: I wouldn’t want to be a candidate for a party that refuses to expel someone like this.
Oh, in that last one? She’s expressing regret that the mother of a supporter of Israel didn’t have a back alley abortion. Nice.
UPDATE: And she’s gone. Au revoir. Bet they found more hate. All the trolls in comments still want to defend her, now?
UPDATER: I am reliably informed she wasn’t fired – she decided to quit on her own. Good for her. Which means Team Trudeau had decided to keep her as the candidate – and, ipso facto, they didn’t think her words were a big deal. Wow.
KINGSTON – If there is anything remarkable about campaign 2015, it’s that it isn’t remarkable at all.
Despite all the Sturm und Drang about Nigel Wright’s testimony, or the leaders’ debate, or the attack ads, nothing seems to be registering.
It has been a meandering, vague sort of affair, one without a centre. It’s the Seinfeld campaign, to invoke a Nineties cliche.
1984,1993 and 2006 were about throwing the bums out. 1988 was about an actual issue. 2008 and 2011 were about Tim Hortons vs. Starbucks. 1997, 2000 and 2004 were about sticking with the Known over the Unknown.
2015? It’s about nothing, so far.
The New Democrats, flush from the victory in Alberta and a fistful of promising polls, had been dreaming about redecorating 24 Sussex. They seemed confident, even cocky.
Not so much anymore. The NDP war room has been AWOL from the start – and Tom Mulcair has sounded like Medicated Tom, not Angry Tom. His debate performance was the worst of all the leaders. And his party has badly stumbled over controversies involving candidates, on everything from keeping oil in the ground, to accusing Israel of war crimes.
The Liberals, meanwhile, needed a solid debate performance by Justin Trudeau, and he gave them one. In the days following the debate, however, Trudeau made two critical errors that undercut whatever he achieved in the debate.
One, he fell into the hole the Conservatives and the New Democrats dug for him – with “just not ready” and “not up to the job,” respectively – and he commenced digging deeper.
Instead of changing the channel on the Tory/Dipper narrative, Trudeau embraced it. He attempted to answer the allegation, in TV spots and campaign appearances. “I’m ready,” he said, doing precisely what his opponents had hoped he’d do.
Departed Liberal guru Keith Davey said it best. “If the other guys says you’re fat,” the Rainmaker once famously observed, “Don’t say ‘I’m not.’ Say: ‘You’re ugly.’”
Trudeau’s second mistake was providing evidence in support of the attacks. At a campaign stop out West, Trudeau said: “We’re proposing a strong and real plan, one that invests in the middle class so that we can grow the economy not from the top down the way Mr. Harper wants to, but from the heart outwards.”
The Sun chain and the National Post had a field day with the “from the heart” line. The Sun even put Trudeau’s head on a Care Bear on its front page. Later, no less than the CBC got in on the act, and some Liberals started to privately wonder if they were witnessing a Stockwell Day of the Left. Will we now measure our GDP with hugs?
Define or be defined: nothing matters as much in politics as that. And, as long as Trudeau continues to debate the way in which his opponents have defined him, he will remain where he is – in third place.
The Conservative campaign, meanwhile, has not been without its challenges, the aforementioned Duffy trial among them. There has been the Oshawa Conservative MP inviting children to a fundraiser at a gun range – and there has been the spectacle of the Tory campaign battling with a provincial Premier over a pension plan, when said Premier’s name isn’t even on the ballot.
In the main, though, a campaign about nothing probably favours the Prime Minister. He knows that he is unlikely to ever win any Mr. Congeniality contests. But he is also likely grateful that the campaign has not turned solely into a referendum about him.
Instead, if there is anger, it has yet to crystallize around a single issue or theme. Despite the predictions of the commentariat, nobody seems to be particularly angry about the fact that the campaign happened early, or that it is so long. They don’t seem to be angry about anything.
Here in Kingston, in a riding the Liberals have held for decades, the candidate is a mouthy, unintelligent former mayor. He has signs up around town, but they all seem to be on public land.
On Kingston’s privately-owned front lawns – and on lawns from Kingston to Kelowna – not many signs are up. Nobody seems to be paying much attention to Election 42.
That may be because it is still Summer. That may be because the campaign so long.
My hunch: it’s because it is a campaign about nothing. And nothing is what Canadians are thinking about it.
Nothing. That’s what Election 42 resembles from this distance, or from close up. Nothing.
From today’s Hill Times column: Which I will post in its entirety soon enough: “If there is anything remarkable about campaign 2015, it’s that it isn’t remarkable at all. Despite all the Sturm und Drang about Nigel Wright’s testimony, or the leaders’ debate, or the attack ads, nothing seems to be registering. It has been a meandering, vague sort of affair, one without a centre. It’s the Seinfeld campaign.”
Am I right? Well, I checked out the CBC News web site this morning, here. There were eight top stories – about fires, debt, Olympic bids and whatnot – but not one of them was about the election.
That will likely change as Monday gets going, sure. Over on National Newswatch, most of the featured columnists are going on - and on and on - about the cosmic significance of Mike Duffy. As I’ve written before many times, however, the “scandal” allegation has been made too loudly, too many times, and the electorate now just tune it all out.
Case in point: Between us, Lisa and I have half-a-dozen teenagers or near-teens. All but one of them were together in Maine last night, laughing and having fun. The only time they talked about politics? When Donald Trump’s name came up. That’s it.