But he got a Slate byline!

What an asshole Carl Wilson is.

Comments (30)

Nate Silver, the Oracle, has spoken.

Silver – the U.S. statistician and political analyst, the Warren Buffett of modern politics – said over the weekend that President Barack Obama’s Democrats are facing a 75 per cent chance of losing control of the Senate Tuesday night. Given that the Republicans already control the House, this is no small thing. Obama, already a lame duck, would be rendered the lamest of lame ducks.

“The polls are clear enough that the GOP will probably win the Senate,” Silver, who exactly predicted the 2012 outcome. “[The mid-terms] look fairly poor for Democrats.”

Much is at stake, so Silver’s prediction is important. Every one of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives is up for grabs Tuesday night – along with a third of the 100 seats in the Senate. Assorted state governorships are on the line, too.

Having been in both Boston and New York City in the past few days, it seems likely that Obama is facing a loss. The mood on the ground certainly suggests a late-race Republican surge.

But why? And, as we poke through the entrails in advance, what does all this mid-term stuff portend (if anything) for Stephen Harper?

We know, we know. Messrs. Harper and Obama could not be more dissimilar. One is a conservative, the other is a progressive. One runs a super power, one does not. One liked George W. Bush, one did not.

But Obama and Harper share some of the same circumstances. For starters, both have wielded power for most or all of the last decade. Both are the undisputed leaders of their respective parties. And both are facing the same challenges (ISIS and Ebola), while simultaneously experiencing the same opportunities (burgeoning economic growth, shrinking unemployment).

In both Canada and the U.S., there are no general strikes. There are no constitutional crises. There are no mass rallies, seeking a premature end to Obama and Harper’s rule.

So why is Obama likely to lose Tuesday night – and is Harper to do likewise, in less than a year?

On any given day, Nate Silver doesn’t have much to say about Stephen Harper. But what he has to say about Barack Obama should give the Canadian Prime Minister pause for thought. There are three principal reasons for this.

One, Silver says, incumbency has become a bit of a curse at the national level. The electorate in the U.S. have not fallen in love with the Republicans, says Silver, so much as they have been seized with what he calls a “very anti-incumbent” mood.

Two, notwithstanding the fact that growth is up and joblessness is down, fear is upon the land. In their advertising, Republicans have relentlessly hammered the fear button – on ISIS, on Ebola – and the media have provided an uncritical echo chamber. Silver tweeted that, “in NYC, I’ve seen zero people wearing surgical masks or otherwise acting paranoid about Ebola. It’s only the media that’s been irrational.” But the fear campaign has paid dividends. When no one else is offering hope, fear works.

Finally, all politicians claim to oppose the status quo, because they know that voters dislike it. With the exception of Obamacare, Obama hasn’t exactly been a rousing agent of change. If anything, he has favoured a caretaker type of presidency, where even the most modest of achievements are celebrated. As such, Silver dryly notes, “President Obama remains unpopular.”

Anti-incumbency. Anxiety about an unpopular war, and an uncertain future. A desire for change, and a rejection of the status quo. All of these things have combined, on this day, to almost guarantee a bad night for the U.S. President.

All of those things should concern Stephen Harper, too.

Ask Nate Silver, Mr. Prime Minister. He’ll tell you.

Comments (29)

I love how they call me a “political raconteur.”

Anyway – if you are in the neighbourhood on November 12 (and even if you aren’t), try and come by.  It’s for a great cause – namely, ridding the nation of the scourge that is Conservative majority government.  Come one, come all! Bring your chequebook!

 

I hate that picture, but the hair looks pretty good.

Comments (5)

Sent from a former senior CBC person I know and respect. It wasn’t just Jian, seems.

Warren, I just read your piece about who knew what and when at the CBC and one of its reporters who is on the fast track to oblivion. Great piece. And I have my suspicions! Indeed, there are some lingering questions:

i. Will the external investigators limit the scope of their enquiry to complaints related to Jian? What if employees come forward with complaints about other CBC on-air persons?
ii. Has the CBC entered into contractual arrangements involving financial compensation for employees who have departed the corporation due to workplace harassment or improprieties on the part of high-profile on-air personalities including but not limited to Jian?
iii. If so, how much money have taxpayers spent on making amends for such workplace improprieties and have any offending employees maintained their positions, if not Jian?

Those are the questions I would be asking were I covering the story…

Comments (31)

So great is my dedication to you, the viewing audience, I risked it all to file this incredible report. You’re welcome.

Watch, and marvel.

Comments (2)

I don’t know what is going on – Twitter is never a good place to look for context or truth – but I’ll say this: Jaime Watt is one of the best at what he does. If you ever got in trouble, you’d be grateful to have him in your corner.

Comments (25)

[I’m posting this early because I’m starting to think my first reaction – disbelief – was wrong. Really wrong. Time will tell, etc., but here is my stab at trying to understand this.]

What did they know, and when did they know it?

That’s a question that has its origins in the Watergate scandal, forty years ago. What did the President know, and when did he know it?

In the intervening years, in respect of assorted real and perceived scandals, it’s a question that you hear a lot. Most of the time, it’s reporters asking The Question about politicians.

In the past few days, the roles have been reversed. Lots of political people are asking The Question of media people: when did they know about Jian Gomeshi, and what did they do about it?

The sordid details are ubiquitous, now. Jian Ghomeshi – who, full disclosure, I knew and liked – is accused of multiple cases of abuse by at least eight women. Most of the complainants are anonymous, but at least one has gone on the record.

None of the allegations have resulted in charges. But all of the allegations have certainly resulted in nausea. As in, it is enough to make one want to throw up.

In the first few hours of the Ghomeshi story, quite a few of us felt that the state broadcaster had no place in the bedrooms of the nation, and said so. But as more details oozed to the surface, quite a few of us started to reconsider.

I sure did. And then I remembered something, from long ago.

In 1984, I was president of the student council at Carleton University, and a journalism student. I wasn’t very good at either, but that’s what I was when a good friend and fellow journalism student called me.

She was crying. She said that she had made the mistake of trusting a very senior reporter with a major TV network. When she didn’t agree to go out with him, this reporter started to threaten my friend. He told her she would never work in TV news, ever, if she didn’t do his bidding.

I’m a bit of a hot-head. I’m a walking Irish bar fight, a pollster friend once said, and it’s true. My friend was scared, and I was thoroughly pissed off. So I found out who the reporter’s boss was, and I called him up.

The boss received my complaint without evincing the slightest degree of empathy for my friend. Zero.

He said he’d look into it.

Here’s what happened next: (a) my female friend was being shunned (b) the reporter was being promoted (c) the reporter and the network were going after a Liberal candidate I was helping out.

I know this because, as I was squiring the candidate around some event in Ottawa, the very senior reporter walked in. “Ah, the famous Warren Kinsella,” he said, and proceeded to put together a hatchet job of truly epic proportions.

What happens next to Jian Ghomeshi is mostly up to the courts. What happens next to various alleged victims is mostly up to the victims themselves.

What interests me, mostly, is what happens next to the CBC. What did they know, and when did they know it?

The allegations were myriad, and had been well-known for months, we are now told. So, did the CBC investigate? Why not, if not?

And if they did, why did they not act sooner? It’s The Question, and it’s one to which the CBC had better have a damn convincing answer. (If it wants to survive, that is.)

Oh, and my friend? She went on to success after success, and is now one of the top PR folks in the country. The very senior reporter, meanwhile, is facing a criminal trial – on an unrelated matter – in the Fall.

And three guesses where he worked? First two don’t count.

You got it.

The CBC.

Comments (55)

Comments (2)

I was up very, very late last night, on air, with the charming David Akin and the brilliant Michael Diamond, discussing Ontario municipal results and Alberta provincial results. It was a blast. Those two are the best.

Tonight, however, I will be at the University of Toronto Scarborough campus – to speak to political science students and staff about last night’s Toronto outcomes. If you are in the neighborhood, come on by and sling some gluten-free buns at me.

(Oh, right: in the new Instruction Centre (“IC”) building, room 220, at 5:15.)

Comments (4)

Keeping church and state separate is important. Keeping the state and the police separate is equally important.

We all got to see why, last week, when Stephen Harper – and one of his senior ministers – summarily changed their job descriptions. Last Monday, the Prime Minister assigned himself the role of federal Chief of Police. Then, last Wednesday, Employment Minister Jason Kenney did likewise.

On Monday, as every Canadian will recall, Armed Forces warrant officer Patrice Vincent was assassinated in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu by an avowed ISIS sympathizer, a pathetic loser who does not deserve to be named.

Vincent’s murder became political fodder, and within minutes.

The parking lot where Vincent was killed was still a crime scene when the Prime Minister’s Office instructed a Conservative backbench MP to ask a puffball question about a “possible terror attack.” He did so, and used those words.

The Prime Minister of Canada stood up and told the Commons: “We are aware of these reports and they are obviously extremely troubling. First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.” He then sat down.

All of this would be fine – it would almost be routine – were it not for one thing: Harper spoke about the killing before many hours before the police would do so.

An RCMP release would only come much, much later. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s Office deputized itself as the Mounties’ PR department, and issued a release that grandly elaborated on Harper’s statement in the Commons.

Two days later, yet more horror, and yet another Conservative politician elbowing aside the police. On that sad day, as all recall, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo was shot while he stood guard at the National War Memorial by another extremist.

The shooting took place before 10 a.m. Thereafter, an entire nation wondered for more than two agonizing hours about Cirillo’s status. Until just before 1 p.m., that is, when Jason Kenney – not police, not a hospital, not Cirillo’s family – announced that the soldier was dead.

“Condolences to family of the soldier killed, & prayers for the Parliamentary guard wounded,” Kenney’s tweet read. “Canada will not be terrorized or intimidated.”

All of which was true. Every word.

But this is true, too: politicians aren’t the police. They should always leave the investigation of crimes to the police. They should always adhere to their clearly-defined constitutional role, and keep their lips zipped about what the police do (and vice-versa).

Canadians should be profoundly uncomfortable, therefore, that any politician would be speaking about these tragedies – or assigning motive, or telling us a soldier has been murdered – long before the police. That is not the way our system works.

As every school kid knows, our Constitution stipulates that the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches must operate separately. It’s all right there, in black and white, in parts three, four and five.

Messrs. Harper and Kenney’s insistence on breaking the news about the deaths of Vincent and Cirillo was unconstitutional, full stop. It also raises the unattractive possibility that, one, Harper and Kenney were willing to reduce two soldier’s tragic deaths to political talking points. And, two, that the Conservatives are willing to usurp the role of the police, if they see any political advantage in doing so.

If that’s the case, then we are piloting through some very dangerous waters, indeed.

The constitutional obligation of any Minister, any Prime Minister, is to (a) let the police do what they do, without interference (b) ensure that we have peace, order and good government – by ensuring that public opinion isn’t needlessly inflamed (c) resist the temptation to politicize something that should never be political.

By all accounts, Vincent and Cirillo were good men, and good soldiers. They bravely did their jobs.

Harper and Kenney should do theirs, and leave police work to the police.

Comments (34)