Michael Harris in iPolitics:

The odd thing about about this re-run of the Right of the Living Dead in the CPC is that it represents something that Stephen Harper himself used to view with mortification and alarm. His original inspiration for muzzling MPs came from his days with Preston Manning.

Back then, a year’s worth of work before a party convention — not to mention the event itself — could be blown apart by one unhinged Reformer ranting at the media about an Asian Invasion or Young Earth Creationism. Who can forget when Warren Kinsella produced a purple Barney the Dinosaur doll on Canada AM, proclaiming he was the only member of his species who had ever shared the planet with humans?

Now it’s not really funny anymore. Harper has simply made the calculation thatif the way to give a chameleon a nervous breakdown is to put him down on plaid, the way to win an election in our disappearing democracy is to offer Canadians only two flavours — vanilla or chocolate.

That means hitting the hot buttons, over and over.

Now, I know Michael is not exactly neutral on the subject of Mr. Harper, but his column – which I caught in Google alert thing – raises an interesting question: are the the myriad recent backbench bimbo eruptions – by Messrs. Williamson, Miller, Kenney, et al. – actual, bona fide, mistakes? Or are they deliberate, and none-too-subtle attempts to throw a bone to the knuckle-draggers in the Reformatory grassroots?

Personally, I don’t see a grand conspiracy in any of this. Why would Harper have gone to all the trouble of casting out the Reform-Alliance-Conservative troglodytes (e.g., Myron Thompson, Bob Ringma, Dave Chatters, et al.), and dispensing with assorted Blue Book craziness (e.g., opposing reproductive choice, equal marriage and Mounties with turbans), only to abruptly turn hard right on the eve of what is to be a hard-fought election campaign in urban Canada?

Makes no sense to me. Oftentimes in politics, then, the simplest explanation is the best one: Harper has had a cluster of backbench bimbo eruptions, and I am told he is none too happy about it. (And God help, FYI, the next backbencher to say something intolerant.)

What thinkest thou, O Wise Reader? A bunch of rookie flubs, or a clever strategy? Comment away!

Comments (51)

From left: Davey Snot, Royal Niblet, Steve Deceive and Winkie Smith. Bjorn von Flapjack III? Who cares. We hate him, now.

I love Stevie’s Townshend-esque flourish. Classic.

Oh, and we made history! We broadcast our show live over Meerkat, and got watched as far away as Australia. Cool.

Comments (1)

Spotted by the ever-vigilant Michael Slavitch.

Comments (5)

Quote:

 Like a real dog whistle which produces sound at a high frequency that can be heard by canines but not by humans, dog-whistle politics refers to the use of code words that go unheard or unremarked by most people but which convey a particular — usually nasty, racially tinged — message to a target audience.

I never liked the phrase, personally, because it suggests that strategists believe voters are animals, and therefore easily trained. If that were so, no one would need strategists anymore, would they?

A cur like Larry Miller notwithstanding, my experience is that Ontario Conservatives – from Harris to Tory to Hudak – were always much more willing to engage in such politics than their federal cousins. Not sure why that is so, but all three of those guys ran campaigns where race was a key strategic imperative. 

Among other things, it certainly casts doubt on the notion that we Albertans are mouth-breathing racists, and Central Canadian folks are always fair-minded progressives, don’t it?

Comments (27)

Quote:

 Warren Kinsella, another Ottawa-based political strategist and former Special Assistant to Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien agrees. “The NDP never wants the Green party there, the Liberals would prefer not to have the NDP there, the Tories would probably prefer to have nobody there. All of them have their preferences,” Kinsella chimes in.

I knew we moved yesterday, but not that far! (We didn’t.)

Anyway, it’s in the new iPolitics thing for today, by subscription. 

What’s your take, debating commenters? Which debate lineup works best for which leader? Which format? How many debates? Which moderator? When? Where? Bueller?

Comments are open. Back to unpacking, for me. 

Comments (27)

• Getting kicked in the face by a goat

• Leaving a baby on a bus

• Having to poop at your friend’s tiny studio apartment

• Accidentally drooling while speaking to a Super Model

• Being kidnapped by a drug cartel

• Swallowing a pill sideways

• Week-long Justin Bieber Music Festival 

….but moving is what we are doing! Yep. 

What do you think moving is worse than, Dear Reader?

Comments (21)

It’s just one poll, election is far away, blah blah blah. But if those BC and PQ numbers are right, Harper doesn’t have far to go to secure another majority.  Wow. 



Comments (69)

Our plan is to get Obama to read it on-air.

Comments (1)

Ah, memories.

Comments (23)

Quote:

31. – That this be the better observed at all times and by all Sisters in every place, we decree that all the Sisters shall so adjust their kerchiefs, that the forehead, both cheeks and the chin shall be for the greater part covered, so that their faces may be in no wise entirely seen.

Shocking! Appalling! Repression! The “Sisters” in question? Why, it’s the Colettine Poor Clare Order of nuns, that’s who.

Here’s a picture of one of them, practically nude:

I look forward to assorted politicians condemning this anti-women group of, er, women.

Comments (14)