Sigh
No Globe story coming, notwithstanding the grilling their reporter gave Trudeau on Friday afternoon about his past.
No Globe story coming, notwithstanding the grilling their reporter gave Trudeau on Friday afternoon about his past.
So, Andrew.
You don’t mind if I call you Andrew, do you? It’s better than what I sometimes used to call you, which was Blandy Andy.
I stopped calling you that because you figured out a way to make the bland thing work, like Brampton Bill Davis did. You embraced your inner ordinariness.
You starting hanging out in hockey rinks and you commenced rubbing Timbits all over your torso – which, unlike Prime Minister Blackface, you have never exposed to a grateful nation. You became the Canadian Everyman, and you made it work for you.
The pocketbook stuff, too. That was good, too. You and Hamish concluded, rightly, that voters regard everyone in politics as an unindicted co-conspirators, so you stopped hollering all the time that Justin is a crook. You just kept talking about how hard it is for regular folks to get by, and left the scandalmongering to the media. That was smart.
And the polls bore fruit, sort of. Ipsos says you’re ahead, and you have been for the entirety of the campaign. Nanos says you’re tied with Trudeau for best choice for Prime Minister, which is way better than you’ve been in the past.
But. But, Andrew, seriously?
Why haven’t 110 per cent of respondents declared you their favoured choice for Prime Minister? Why isn’t your party a kabillion points ahead of the Liberals? Why, Andrew, why?
Because that’s the question everyone is asking themselves, Andrew. Hell, that’s the question members of the Liberal caucus are asking themselves – many of whom had purchased political funeral insurance, and now they’re wondering if they can convert it to another kind of policy at the insurance brokerage where you used to fetch coffee and answer the phone.
By any reasonable standard, Andrew, Justin Trudeau leads the most corrupt – the most casually evil – government in Canadian history. It is shiftless; it is reckless; it is soulless. It is a mess.
And they could still win, Andrew. They could still beat you. How can this be?
A scan of Trudeau’s press clippings reads like a grand jury indictment.
• In LavScam, he obstructed justice when he tried, repeatedly, to stop the criminal corruption trial of a Québec-based donor to his party.
• He violated conflict of interest laws when he accepted freebies during a junket to the Aga Khan’s private island.
• He lied about electoral reform, and balancing the budget, and improving relations with the provinces and the world.
• He made us an international laughingstock with his Griswolds Vacation India trip, and enraged the world’s largest democracy – our ally and Commonwealth partner.
• And, most recently, he admitted he repeatedly mocked black people by wearing blackface and jumping around like an ape – and he admitted that there’s more of it out there in the ether, but he doesn’t know how much, because he was wasted a lot of the time.
After all that, Andrew – after all that scandal, more of which this newspaper has been investigating for weeks, stay tuned to this bat-channel, everyone – why aren’t you way ahead? Why aren’t you creaming Chewbacca Socks?
Why, to cite just two examples from the past 24 hours, did you attract fewer people at a Brampton rally than Justin Trudeau’s Portuguese Water Dog, Kenzie, gets during a stroll through the park?
Why can’t you put an end to the interminable questions about your CV, and simply joke that you’re so boring, you’re the only guy in Canada who brags about being an insurance broker?
None of it makes sense, Andrew. None of it. You should be playing Fortnite with Hamish about now, getting ready to move into wherever we put Prime Ministers these days.
Instead, you’re fighting to get a decent lead. Instead, your caucus are whispering about the next leader.
It’s crazy, Andrew. But one thing isn’t crazy at all:
You’ve got three weeks left to win this thing.
And if you don’t, you’ll forever be remembered as the guy who couldn’t beat Prime Minister Blackface.
Sending staff out to walk her dog, or pick up her personal items at the pharmacy, mocking them, etc. Yep, she’s a big winner everyone should listen to. Right.
img src=”http://warrenkinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/img_5672.jpg” class=”size-full wp-image-32130″ width=”528″ height=”475″>

So:
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer holds dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship – The Globe and Mail #elxn43 #cdnpoli https://t.co/Tehrcp04mn
— Robert Fife (@RobertFife) October 3, 2019
Therefore:
Apropos of nothing, I am reminded of the #CPC's outrage about Stephane Dion's dual citizenship, back in 2008, or how vexed they were that Michael Ignatieff was "just visiting" back in 2011. Anyone else remember that stuff? Yep. #cdnpoli #elxn43
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) October 3, 2019
Who won? The separatist guy, Yves-Francois Blanchet. He was calm, he was cool and he was collected. He totally dominated.
Who lost? Justin Trudeau. He needed to remind everyone that that hopey-changey guy from 2015 is still around. He didn’t, because he isn’t. (And he was clobbered on one key point. More on that in a minute.)
Who won a silver? Jagmeet Singh. His French was better than expected, and he played the class-warfare card expertly.
Who barely won a French-language bronze – but seized an English-language gold? Andrew Scheer, with a caveat, which is also discussed below. Because, while he may not have won the French debate in French Canada – his equivocation on abortion was pretty bad – Scheer definitely won a French-language debate in English Canada. (I will explain.)
Anyway. Here’s my caveat about Scheer, who as I say won the debate outside Quebec, partly because no one watched it outside Quebec.
In a leaders’ debate, you need to make certain that your story that dominates. Here’s why: no matter how nice your opponent looks — no matter how articulate, no matter how charming — he or she can’t win if your message is the dominant theme of the night.
Like Andrew Scheer’s attack on Justin Trudeau’s two campaign planes. Because it (a) exposed Trudeau to be a hypocrite (b) it made him look vain (because he uses the second plane for his “canoes and costumes,” as Scheer quipped) and (c) it was the dominant theme in all the subsequent coverage in English Canada, and the Tories had graphics and ads ready to go to ensure that it dominated. It reminded me of what Jack Layton did to Michael Ignatieff in another debate, with devastating results.
Televised leaders’ debates show us all why having the dominant narrative is so crucial. TV debates give candidates a chance to stress basic campaign themes, and in front of what is usually the biggest audience of the campaign. They also let candidates depict their opponents’ campaign message in an unflattering way. But contrary to what some media pundits claim, debates are not about defining moments.
Debates are about ratifying your side’s issues — and the issues in the campaign — and looking good at the same time. They’re not about defeating the opposition’s claims, proving something, or answering reporters’ questions, either. They’re about getting your story — your spin, your message — heard by as many people as possible. Full stop.
Now, keep in mind that last night’s debate is not going to change voters’ minds about the key issues. Most of them have their minds made up by now. But in a tight race, like this one, debates can make a huge difference.
The most successful presidential and prime ministerial performers enter debates with a single clear message they wish to get across — and they use questions and interruptions to return to, or highlight, their single key message. As Dick Morris told me once, a simple way to measure success is to count the number of debate minutes devoted to your key messages (eg. for a progressive, health or the environment) and not the opposition’s (eg. for a conservative, tax cuts or “getting tough on crime”). You win when your story has taken up the greatest number of minutes. Before they head off to bed, you want the people who tuned in to conclude that your guy or gal is humble, energetic, trustworthy, passionate, positive — and that he or she is “fighting for me.”
Losing, on the other hand, is easy. If a liberal guy or gal performs well on an issue like “getting tough on crime,” and the other side doesn’t, it doesn’t matter that the liberal did a fabulous job presenting his or her case and sounded like the best debater in the history of planet Earth. The “getting tough on crime” issue is their issue. The other side will always sound more credible when the subject matter is their issue.
Anyway: facts tell, stories sell. And when you’ve got a winning story, stick to it. Don’t talk about the other guy’s story.
The plane thing is a winning story. It hurt Trudeau, big time.
Vote now, vote often!
@JerryAgar had me on his hugely popular @NEWSTALK1010 show today. He asked me why I'm not a @JustinTrudeau fan. Vote for my top answer!
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) October 2, 2019
Jerry Agar’s line to me, and I had to steal it.
DOUG WHO? #elxn43 #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/lF4woII5I1
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) October 2, 2019

So. First day of October. Here’s bits and pieces, this and that:

The picture above was apparently taken last night in Ottawa. It shows the Huffington Post’s Althia Raj and the Liberal Party’s Gerald Butts.
Raj is one of the moderators in the crucial (and only) English-language leaders’ debate.
In my view, Butts was merely doing his job, and doing it well. But was it a good idea for Raj to get together with Butts, mere days before the debates kick off?
No. And some studies actually make that clear, too.
There’s bias, and there’s appearance of bias. In a tight election race, it is stupid for a reporter to do anything that provides evidence of an appearance of bias. Particularly when there is a requirement that “high journalistic standards” be maintained in respect of the debates.
It’s always the same: people in Ottawa regularly think that everyone South of the Queensway don’t notice what they do after hours.
But we do.