The site went dark, there, for a while.  Media Temple, which hosts it, had a big system-wide crash.

Also, I still don’t see my Sun column online anywhere yet – it’s in the dead tree version, however, so go buy it, if you’re so inclined!

 

Comments (3)

• So, er, what happened? Lots of big changes of course/plan in the past 24 hours for a lot of folks, me included.  Here’s a summary, which may leave you as bewildered as I tend to be most days.
• Kinsella Kolumn Killed: If you are one of the two or three people who read it, you will notice that my usual Tuesday Sun column ain’t there.  Why isn’t, you ask?  Beats me, says I.  I filed it, my editor got it, and the rest is a mystery.  My suspicion is that the launch of the new Sun TV network, the launch of the new Sun web site, and the paper redesign all had something to do that.  That, or I’ve been canned, and no one’s told me yet. Here’s a snippet of it, in the unlikely event you are curious about the subject matter: “Stephen Harper’s Reformatories, you see, are heading to victory on May 2. And, barring some big upset in the next few days, it may be a big victory, too.  Now, it’s not like that the Conservative leader deserves a majority, let alone re-election. He’s run up a historically-big deficit, he’s run a lousy campaign, and he’s run his promise to clean up government straight into the ditch – with so many ethical lapses taking place, you need a program to keep track.  (My personal favourite? He fires Helena Guergis for cavorting with hookers, when she didn’t – and he then gives a big patronage job to convicted fraud artist Bruce Carson.  Who, er, brought a real hooker to a party at 24 Sussex.)  So if I’m right, and Harper’s done such a crummy job, why is he cruising to victory? Mainly, it’s because those of us on the Left have done a lousier job.”
• Sun TV rises: Speaking of the TV thing, I wasn’t on the launch show yesterday, either.  I will be on there tomorrow, I think, perhaps as an out-of-work columnist.  Some of the commentary on the new network is here and here.  I watched a bit of the launch with my staff, and I can tell you the following:  (i) I will not be wearing a short skirt, unless you want to pay me scads of money, in which case I will; (ii) I like free speech, too, but you won’t see me yelling “fire” in a crowded Sun TV studio anytime soon; (iii) I have noticed that “political correctness” is usually code for “I want to say whatever pops into my head without getting sued/fired;” and (iv) “Controversy,” is my middle name, so I should fit right in, however much I am a Bolshevik when compared to the rest of the gang.
• Libs change gears?: So says Ms. Hebert:  “The lines may be different but the basic script is eerily familiar.  For the third time in as many federal elections, the Liberals are switching horses at the mid-way point in the hope of resuscitating a flagging campaign.” Well, not quite.  Reporters may not have noticed it, but the Libs and the NDP have been talking about the subject for quite some time – it’s just that some media outlets find talking about strategy and tactics a lot more interesting than writing about, you know, issues.  And, on health care:  the Libs deftly turned a potential negative (the Harper misquote in that hard-hitting health care ad) into a positive (a fun contest to find the quote with which to replace it). Brilliant.
• Reformatories target NDP: As Jane points out in her daily take on the daily Nanos:  “Stephen Harper will lose seats in Quebec, is dropping support in British Columbia and will not form a majority government on May 2, according to a new Nanos Research poll.” That’s a lot of bad news for the Con leader – so he’s now changing course, and starting to aim at the surging NDP and Jack Layton. Will it work?  Dunno.  But expect a lot more critical scrutiny of Wacko Jacko by both the Grits and Tories in coming days.
• Poll changes: Sort of.  You Daily Nanos Crack™ suggests that the Liberal-Conservative gap remains what it has been for weeks (about 8 or 9 points), and that the NDP’s national support is still about half the Liberals’ (30 to 17, respectively).  So one thing hasn’t yet changed – vindication for those of us who were predicting this election will get us more or less what we had when Parliament dissolved: a minority Tory government.
• Pic of the day: Caption contest!

 

“Whee! Look at me! Look at me! I’m a contender!”

 

Comments (53)

An example of TransAlta’s brilliant business model.

The heartless creeps who run this greedy multinational – and, as shown on my site last week, don’t give a damn when they make small town Ontario families sick – get mocked on Twitter, here.

Follow it, one and all! This could get really interesting.

Comments (5)

“OTTAWA (wk.com) – The Conservatives are expressing outrage about being misquoted by the Liberals in a critical TV ad, and are demanding an apology and withdrawal of the spot.

The Auditor-General and Parliamentary Budget Officer could not be reached for comment.”

Seriously, folks: that ad has been on air for six days.

The reason why the CPC is complaining now?

It’s working.

Comments (95)

• The start to the second-to-final campaign week! And for the Tories (sort of) and the Grits (in particular) things are not so great.  In yesterday’s Sun, I tried to address why some voters are making Stephen Harper unhappy (because they’re afraid what he’ll do with a majority), and in tomorrow’s paper, I will try to address why some voters are making Michael Ignateiff unhappy (because they’re uneasy that he chose to render the LPC a paler shade of Harper on some key issues).  Thus, this morning’s stunner Angus Reid poll.
• The stunner poll: On most days, I look at most things from this particular firm with a proverbial grain of salt – but, that said, it’s consistent with what I’m writing tomorrow: namely, under Ignatieff and his senior staff, the Libs moved too far to the right on important issues (eg. Afghanistan, oil sands, health care, etc.).  And now they’re paying the price: “An Angus Reid poll shows one quarter of Canadians say they would vote for the New Democrats, an increase of four percentage points since early this month. That puts the party in a tie for second place with the Liberals, who are also at 25 per cent after seeing their support drop by two percentage points over the same period.  The Conservatives remain in first place with 36 per cent of the support, down by two percentage points but still a double-digit lead.” For lefty-Libs like me, it’s not a surprise – but it’s a disappointment, because it could have been avoided.  Whenever we let Rosedale Liberals take over – under Turner, Martin and now Ignatieff – we lose folks to the NDP.  Liberals never win when they go too far right.
• Why are the Cons a bit edgy, then? because, as is pointed out here by Jane, there’s whole lot of “turbulence” going on beneath the horserace numbers. And, as I’ve been suggesting to political pals, the national horserace numbers give a distorted picture: Harper can only win seats once, for example, in places like Calgary.  So the huge numbers he has there are wasted – and it means he’s not as strong nationally as you might think. The majority may not come to pass: it all depends on GOTV.
• Touched a nerve! Wow – my column in yesterday’s aforementioned column in the Sun got nearly 300 comments here, and nearly 200 over on the Sun web site. Conservatives were enraged that I would suggest that Harper and Co. would go after guns, abortion and gays – and many were positively delighted, saying that that’s the kind of Canada they wanted.  One Toronto-area Liberal campaign emailed me to say that they were hearing about the column at the doors – people were concerned about what a Harper majority would do to Canada.  Meanwhile, a couple assholes make snarky remarks about my religion, so I told them to piss off and blocked them.  Not bad for a Sunday!
• Candidate Rule #356: Never, ever let a reporter accompany your candidate as he or she goes on a door-to-door canvass.  They’re always going to report on some single nasty exchange – not the dozens of positive receptions you got.  Thus, this Star story, where we learn that the Conservative candidate in Helena Guergis’ riding – a medical doctor – is dispensing medical advice to people at the door. I’m not a doc, just the son of one, but I’m kind of wondering if that is, well, legal. It sure as Hell is inviting trouble.
• Most ridiculous column of the week: Seen here. It’s so dumb, it’s hard to know where to begin.
• Fill ‘er up: My newspaper has an editorial, here, about the only issue that all the Real People I know are talking about: the price of gas.  On this one, Harper can be whacked by Messrs. Ignatieff and Layton – because he’s seen as the shill for greedy oil multinationals.  Will they go after Harper today?  We shall see. They should.
• Video of the campaign! Check out this spot by my Lib pal Bob Richardson – it’s the toughest (and most effective) sot of the campaign so far:

Comments (69)

• Will he get one? I don’t know, and neither does he.  But is he close to one?  Yes, yes he is.  Therefore, I figured I’d use my spot in the Sun to (a) speculate as to why that happened and (b) what policies we are likely to see if it does.  Typically, I do those two things in reverse.  Today, I predict what a Harper majority will do, by looking at past Conservative behaviour.  On Tuesday – the start of the new-look Sun, its new network, and its new web site – I suggest a few reasons why he has been winning Election 2011.  Conservatives won’t like today’s column; Liberals (some of them, anyway) won’t like Tuesday’s.  Here’s all of today’s.

What would a Stephen Harper majority government look like?

It’s not an idle question. We’re now in the second half of the 2011 national election campaign, and the Conservative Party remains comfortably ahead of the Liberal Party — and, according to some pollsters, is in (or very near) majority government territory.

Harper’s campaign team has done surprisingly poorly, while Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals have turned in a more solid performance. But poll after poll have shown that Team Harper’s many missteps haven’t really affected voter intention.

That’s why, perhaps, the Conservative leader is doing something in this campaign something he would never have dreamt of doing in 2004, 2006 or 2008 — he’s openly appealing for a majority.

Harper, while strategic, has never really been very secretive about what he would like to do with unfettered power. All of it is on the public record.

This, then, is what a Conservative majority government’s policies should look like.

• No abortion. In May of last year, Harper’s government was alone among G8 nations in opposing abortion as part of family-planning projects in poor nations. He stuck to his decision, even when facing criticism from Barack Obama. If put to a vote — and Tory MPs periodically push for one — abortion would be gone. Since Harper assumed control of the party in 2004, more than 80% of his caucus favour banning abortion.
• No gun control. More than other issue of its type, Harper has been clear about gun-safety laws — he detests them. In 2009, a Conservative backbencher’s bill to gut the centre of Canada’s gun control laws was defeated in Parliament. But Harper is undeterred. Throughout the campaign, he has said his party will go back to the issue and “scrap the long-gun registry.” Shootings generally account for a third of all murders in Canada; after tougher gun controls were introduced in 1995, shooting-related deaths dropped dramatically. But, despite the pleas of police officers and victims’ families, gun control will be history under a Harper majority.
• No equal marriage. In 2005, Harper and a majority of his party voted for the proposition that marriage can only happen between heterosexuals. During the debate on Bill C-38 — the equal marriage bill — Harper appeared at rallies where anti-gay rhetoric flourished. The Tory leader does not regard the issue as one of human rights. In Parliament in September 2003, he dismissed it as a discussion about “sexual behaviour.” It’ll be gone, too.
• The death penalty. Since 2004, Harper has said he favours a free vote on a return of the death penalty. He wrote the Reform Party platform that called for a binding referendum on it. Most of his caucus are onside, with a majority of Conservative MPs — including Harper’s current justice minister — voting for it the last time it was before the House in 1987. More recently, in an interview with CBC in January, Harper stated: “There are times where capital punishment is appropriate.” Harper hastened to add that he then had “no plans” to bring back the ultimate sentence.

There are many other issues where Stephen Harper has been clear about what he favours — such as more jails, more government advertising, more baubles for the generals — and what he does not.

He isn’t shy. It’s all there, on the record, for those who want to look.

What is also there is this truth: For good or bad, by the time Harper is done with it, you won’t recognize Canada.

 

Comments (207)

Coming soon to Sun TV!

 

Comments (9)

Spike Jonze, Yo-Yo Ma, Lil Buck.  Amazing.

Comments (2)

Now we’re talkin’.

Comments (98)

Who do you want defending health care for Ontarians at the fed-prov negotiating table?

My guy, McGuinty? Or Timmy Hudak, who will never be anything more than Stephen Harper’s water boy?

Comments (12)