How low can Iggy go?

harperismyhomeboy points out comments made by Paul Wells, reminding everyone that Iggy's AWFUL numbers in today's CROP poll were collected PRIOR to this week's Quebec Liberal meltdown.

So, I guess that begs the question... once the implosion factor is accounted for, how low will Iffy's numbers go? The current CROP poll puts the Iggy at 26%... a mere two points higher than Dion's dismal 24% from last year's election. Do I have any takers?

I say he'll at least best (worst?) Dion's numbers by a point... 23% is my guess. My "only in my wildest dreams" number? 21%

Any LOWER than that, and look for Jack to suddenly get a little more bold... forcing Iggy to back down, and there'll no going to the polls until at least May 2010.

UPDATE: Finally, someone agrees with my analysis from the other day... Jack, it's now or never! There's NO WAY he's going to have a better opening than he has right now.

Now THIS would be a huge win for Harper

You folks wanna talk policy? Let's talk policy then... if Harper can pull this one off, it would pretty much make him UNTOUCHABLE until well into 2010.

Now this is what I call, "Getting things DONE for Canadians".

Buy American exemption deal in the works
Last Updated: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 | 9:01 PM ET
CBC News

A deal may be imminent that will exempt Canada from the controversial Buy American provision included in the U.S. stimulus package, CBC News has learned.

According to Canadian government sources, Ottawa expects that the White House will use its discretionary power to exempt Canada from the clause very soon. In return, Canada would simultaneously announce that its provincial and municipal doors are now wide open to U.S. companies.

Sources say the announcement could be made when the two trade negotiators, Ottawa's Don Stephenson and Washington's Everett Eissenstat hold their first formal meeting.

The provision gives priority to U.S. iron, steel and other manufactured goods for use in state-level and municipal public works and building projects funded with taxpayer stimulus money. Canadian governments and businesses have railed against the policy.

During Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit with U.S. President Barack Obama last week, Harper again made a pitch for an exclusion for Canada from "Buy American" provisions.

Harper and Obama said the two sides were looking into ways of addressing the issue, including the possibility of including the provinces in a multilateral deal.

Obama has said the clause conforms with all World Trade Organization and NAFTA regulations because it deals with what's called sub-national governments — such as states and municipalities — which aren't included in trade treaties.

Last week, Obama suggested that Canada's provinces must open their local markets to American companies. Canadian officials say the White House first stated its terms last spring, after Obama's visit to Ottawa.

In August, it was revealed that Canada and the provinces were offering U.S. firms guaranteed access to procurement contracts, as long as Canada gets a waiver of the "Buy American" provision.

American business have also been calling for the exemption, saying the clause has been killing American jobs, particularly at U.S. companies with Canadian suppliers.

"You need to understand our supply chain and how we make money and not limit us in the way that Buy American does," said Maryscott Greenwood, of the Canadian American Business Council. "It doesn’t make any sense. Particularliy when you’re talking about Canada."

Iggy's "Narnia" FOUND!

Blogging Tories founder Stephen Taylor has managed to discover the location where Iggy's Narnia ads were filmed... at Cherry Beach, in DOWNTOWN TORONTO.


View Larger Map


Does anyone still wonder why their unofficial nickname is the "Liberal Party of Toronto"? Chalk up another blunder for the T.O. OLO!


NOTE: This item has been posted to feed other blog aggregators I'm on, not so much to repost this story again on the Blogging Tories... my apologies to all the BTer's who've already read this one at Stephen Taylor's blog.

Maclean's ITQ offers Liberals a campaign strategy

LOL! Iggy's guys in the "T.O. OLO" ought to give this some serious consideration...

As a friend of the non-Liberal persuasion pointed out to ITQ last night, if you charted the last few months of Liberal poll numbers alongside Ignatieff’s disappearance from the political landscape, you could rightly conclude that his [Ignatieff's] best strategy for the next election will be to spend it holed up in an underground silo somewhere in Narnia.

When the MSM is turning on them, you know the Liberals are in SERIOUS trouble.

Come on Jack... PULL THE TRIGGER ALREADY!!!

GO MCGUINTY!!!

No, for once I'm NOT calling for him to be tossed out of office... I'm COMMENDING HIS GOVERNMENT FOR THIS...and I'm backing this one 100%!!!

Ont. launches $50B tobacco lawsuit
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Ontario says it is going to sue the big tobacco companies — for $50 billion.

The province said in a news release it is seeking damages "for past and ongoing health-care costs linked to tobacco-related illness."

"Ontario is taking the next step towards recovering taxpayer dollars spent fighting tobacco-related illnesses. We are joining British Columbia and New Brunswick in initiating a lawsuit to recover health-care costs from tobacco companies," said Attorney General Chris Bentley.

The $50-billion figure represents the cost the province says it has footed for providing health care to smokers for more than half a century.

"The amount of $50 billion will have to be proven in court, of course, but that it our view of the costs of health care- related illnesses directly tied to tobacco from 1955 until now," Bentley told reporters outside the provincial legislative assembly.

Ontario set the framework for the lawsuit through legislation passed this year.

The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act allows the province to sue for recovery of past, present and continuing tobacco-related damages. It also creates a method to determine the costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses and allocates liability by market share.

"The taxpayers of the province of Ontario have paid a lot of money for health-care costs directly related to tobacco use over the decades," Bentley said. "We passed legislation, which is consistent with legislation in other places. We believe the taxpayers should be compensated for the costs that they have paid. That's what this lawsuit is about,"

The tobacco companies have not responded.

The allegations contained in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.

The first lawsuit against tobacco companies was pursued by four U.S. states in the mid-1990s, and led to a 50-state agreement in 1999 in which the industry agreed to pay $246 billion US over a 25-year period for health-care costs that resulted from the use of its products.

With files from The Canadian Press

"Iggy's T.O. OLO"

Everyone remembers the old "Mr. Dithers" tag, right? There's a rule when it comes to framing your opponent... instead of using dozens of different tags, you pick one or two, and then repeat them until they stick. As for a recent example, there's Iggy's new nickname "Iffy"... I finally saw someone in the MSM mention that nickname in today's coverage.

So, with Ignatieff's blunder of trying to run the Quebec Liberal organization out of his own Toronto-centric OLO, we've been given a rare opportunity to do exactly what Warren would advise us to do... take a known fact, frame it correctly, and then beat them over the head with it relentlessly.

As such, here's my submission to how we correctly frame Ignatieff's leadership...

Iggy's T.O. OLO

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Now here's what we do with that tag... repeat it non-stop, EVERWHERE, on every blog, in every Letter to the Editor, and on every media outlet's website comments section, until the MSM picks gets it. Even if they don't repeat it in their stories, it'll be so ingraned into the back of their minds that their coverage can't help but reflect that angle.

THAT'S how we win this media war. That's how we take advantage of this momunental blunder by Ignatieff, and make sure that every clearly gets the message that the Liberal Party of Canada is now the Liberal Party of TORONTO... and most of this country is sick of Toronto dictating to the rest of us how this country ought to be run.

UPDATE: Stephen Taylor adds more fuel to the "T.O. OLO" fire... Iggy's Narnia ads were filmed at Cherry Beach, in DOWNTOWN TORONTO.


View Larger Map

Iggy further entrenches accusations of the "Liberal Party of Toronto"?

Are you kidding me? Ignatieff says that as opposed to naming a new Quebec lieutenant, the Quebec organization will for now be run out of the HIS OWN OFFICE.

You mean The T.O.-OLO? As in "Toronto Opposition Leaders Office".

Check out the entire clip from last night's CTV News, starting at the 3:25 clip... Roger Fife's damaging statement that Iggy won't be naming a new lieutenant is at the 6:10 mark. (Roger's segment starts at the 5:38 mark, and is worth watching in its entirety)

Remember my spoof logo on the "Liberal 308" plan? I think it's even more appropriate today:

h/t to Joanne

Harper sends a zinger in Iggy's direction?

Was this crack at today's Economic Update a not so veiled shot at His Royal Iggyness?

[Harper] stressed that Canada "was not out of the woods yet." [ZING!!!]

"Far too many Canadians are still out of work, too many families are suffering hardship, and just as Canada was dragged into the global recession through no fault of our own, our recovery could be derailed by events beyond our borders," Harper said.

The prime minister said Canada must stay the course with the government's Economic Action Plan to ensure recovery. And Harper suggested that an "unnecessary and wasteful election" could derail plans for recovery.

"That is why it is crucial that we continue to implement our action plan, that we continue to stay the course," he said.

Coderre just gave Layton his opening

Unbelievable. if anyone of you thought we weren't going to the polls, this just changed everything... by suddenly up and quitting today, Denis Coderre has perhaps give Jack Layton just the cover he needed to join the Liberals in forcing an election.

With the Liberals in complete disarray, and their Quebec organization is shambles, there's never going to be a better time to go to the polls for Jack Layton's NDP. They're going to be able to poach a whole whack of seats, perhaps even a couple in Quebec, from the disorganized and demoralized Liberals.

I've been checking the Parliamentary website today, watching for the official tabling of the Liberal's non-confidence motion. If they're going to table it, it will be after Question Period around 3:00PM today.

If they Liberals are really worried, watch for the unthinkable... watch for them to take a pass on introducing their motion!

UPDATE: But it shall not come to pass... Layton will continue to prop us up. Wonder how long he can keep this up without his own caucus revolt...

Seniors livid over Ruby's Private Members bill

There's a serious grassroots uprising over Ruby Dhalla's new "Pensions for Newcomers" Bill C-428. It's kinda weird getting mass e-mails from seniors... e-based grassroots campaigns aren't the exclusive domain of us young whipper-snappers anymore!

I got an e-mail from an older gentleman who's certainly no fan of me, so the fact that he even sent it to me seeking my help on the issue says something. I recognized some of the names on his initial list, but when I scrolled down, I saw a whole lot of names who'd gotten the e-mail! It doesn't look like any professionally organized campaign... basically, the messages I've seen look like, well, from seniors. They're really disturbed by this new bill.

Basically, Ruby wants pensions for new immigrant seniors to this country, who haven't contributed at all to the system from which they're to reap benefits. I don't know about you, but it strikes me as yet another Liberal attempt to pander for votes. The Liberals have been losing a lot of ground within the immigrant communities, and Ruby's own seat is severely at risk in any upcoming election. So what does she do? She seeks to offer a carrot to voters in her riding to stick with her. Never mind the fact that it will cost taxpayers a whole lot of money, she doesn't care. She, like the typical Liberal she is, is only looking to save her own skin.

As an immigrant to this country, I don't think this bill is fair whatsoever. If someone's family has been pushing to bring their parents from overseas under the family re-unification category of the Immigration system, then they should be fully prepared to support those family members... they shouldn't then be turning to the government and say "Okay, now I've finally got my family here, now I need your help to support them too."

Doesn't that just strike you as being WRONG? But of course it wouldn't to the "Culture of Entitlement" folks like Ruby in the Liberal Party of Canada. Yet another reason why we need to crush the Red Beast.

Iggy's Secret "Outtakes" from Narnia Commercial

Courtesy of good old Rick Mercer!

NOTE: Embedding seems to be having a problem, click on the video to go to the YouTube page directly, which seems to be working fine.

Iggy caves, gives Coderre the shaft

Ouch, this is gonna get messy...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-ends-outremont-squabble/article1301721/

Undercutting his own Quebec Lieutenant? You don't get to hold that spot unless you've got some significant connections. Basically, Iggy's just ticked off a whole whack of organizers.

Maybe they'll think of switching teams like they did in 2006?

Sent from my Blackberry

Young Liberals to Iggy: "We deserve better"

A Google translation of a letter sent to Michael Ignatieff... by some disenfranchised young Liberals in Quebec.

Seems all is not well for Iggy in "La Belle Province".

We are sure that you understand, Mr. Ignatieff, as members of this party, we deserve better.
© 2000-2009 Cyberpresse inc., A Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Jonathan Pedneault and John Lennard
The authors are young activists of the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Pedneault wanted to be a candidate in Longueuil-Pierre-Boucher.

Ignatieff, there was a time when being liberal was a sign of courage, strength of character, independence of mind and respect for democracy.

Unfortunately we are forced to note that in 2009 a member of the federal Liberal Party in Quebec, is knowing how to keep his place, to obey without question - and especially - do not question the authorities in place.

As members of the PLC, but also as strong advocate of liberal thought, we see ourselves forced by lack of unfortunate events, to take call on the public square for you state our point of view. Our goal is not to embarrass the party, but to strengthen it. If we do this is that we are confident that we could get our message through the forums of the party. Bodies which, like all institutions, have the annoying habit of opposing the change and their ideas seemed a little too bold. In the Liberal Party is willing, this should be seen as a serious problem.

Even more problematic is how the tendency of some people in our party to be institutionalized so as to make ubiquitous and omnipotent. This seems especially true these days, while hints of Duplessis float in the air somewhat tainted by the Quebec wing of the LPC.

Since a new lieutenant was appointed to Quebec by you, we never stopped to let us do understand the importance of his role. So also with all the respect that we grow with you, we ask that you or the lieutenant in question, leading the party in Quebec. We will deliver not question the quality of your leadership within the party, but we can only worry about seeing some act as if they alone were in control.

After we have announced with great fanfare in spring 2009, all districts of Quebec, including those held by Liberal MPs, could be subject to a nomination contest to determine the party candidate, some began to playing petty politics to ensure their future and their grandiloquent ambitions.

Somewhat sneaky, they began to impose candidates in several constituencies, thereby exceeding the sacred right that should be members of this party, we want Liberal to choose one who will carry the red their constituency.
It is not very liberal to deny applications for the nomination, without justification, to focus people around him. It is not very liberal favor some other candidate in a nomination contest. And it is not very generous to its own interests (or dirty, it depends) over democracy.

Without doubt, the imposing shadow of those people who take too much space hovers above all Liberal ranks in Quebec. During the drafting of that letter, we received much encouragement from people who shared our views, but be prepared to co-sign for fear of reprisals. Is this the party for which we wish to argue? This party needs to regain its former glory liberal, and flout the law of silence.

Now that elections are fast approaching, it seems difficult to see that members of this party - which we recall are the backbone of any possible victory -have a say in selecting candidates. However, for the good of the party and for that of your political future, we believe that you should beware of those who by their actions, seeking by every means to harass the courage, strength of character, independence of spirit and soul fundamentally Democratic members of the party.

We are sure that you understand, Mr. Ignatieff, as members of this party, we deserve better.

How Jack gets his mojo back

It's real simple, with all the recent polls out there, and with the current implosion of the Liberal brand in Quebec... CALL IGGY'S BLUFF ON THE NEXT CONFIDENCE MOTION.

There is simply no way that Iggy can afford to go to the polls right now... he's in Dion like territory with the media and the electorate. Gilles will be smelling the blood in the water, and won't prop up the Tories in the upcoming Confidence motion. All Jack has to do is stick to his guns and vote non-confidence for the 80th time.

Only two possible outcomes, both of them which are good for Jack Layton's NDP:

1) Iggy gets to wear some serious on his face, AGAIN, when he's forced to let his own non-Confidence motion fail.

2) The motion carries, we go into an election for which Iggy will wear ALL the blame. Jack gets to run his dream campaign of being the "Effective Opposition" with a Liberal leader everyone is ticked off at. He's in a great position to pick off a whole whack of Liberal seats in places like Toronto, thanks largely to disaffected Liberals.

I just don't see the downside for Jack Layton... do you?

Of COURSE I'm going to comment on this one

From today's Toronto Sun: "Loss of faith in Grits: Study"

As I have been saying for some time now, the way that the Liberal Party of Canada treats people of faith IS DISGUSTING. Though I once supported one of their candidates in the 1997 election, it's unlikely that I could ever do so again, because that Party HATES, truely hates, people of faith. To them, if you are a person of faith, you are to be ridiculed and marginalized, at any and all costs. To them, our opinion is irrelevant... not only is it irrelevant, to them, it's a great big bullzye for them to shoot at relentlessly.

Take, for example, the SSM debate... which was the beginning of the end of supporting the Liberals for people of faith. While many of us understood that accomodation needed to be made via civil unions of something of that nature, the Liberal Party of Canada decided instead to pit one group of Canadians against another, and said it was an all or nothing proposition. They ignored repeated calls for dialouge and compromise, and rammed their agenda down the throats of faith groups.

And the unintended consequences we tried to warn them about are now becoming a reality. What's that, polygamy is right around the corner you say? Can't be true, the Liberals said that would never happen. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the "unintended consequences"...

Either way, Elizabeth Thompson is bang on in this article... THIS LOSS OF SUPPORT IS 100% THIER OWN FAULT.

Loss of faith in Grits: Study
Party's support dips among evangelical Christians
By ELIZABETH THOMPSON, NATIONAL BUREAU
24th September 2009

The Liberal Party was once the most popular political party with Canada's millions of evangelical Christians but has lost much of that support to the Conservatives and the New Democrats, a new study says.

And it is largely its own fault.

"It's depressing as hell," Liberal MP John McKay said. "It shows a voting trend which is not favourable to my party and I think we have some repair work to do."

McKay, who is also an evangelical Christian, said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is taking the findings of the study seriously and is trying to repair relations with Canada's estimated 3.5-4 million Evangelical Christians.

The study, by Don Hutchinson and Rick Hiemstra of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, tracked the voting patterns of Canada's evangelical Christians from 1996 to 2008. Among the things they found was that there is a lot of difference between the way evangelical Christians vote in the United States and in Canada.

For one, Canada's evangelicals don't vote in a monolithic block for one single party. Secondly, while the most popular party with evangelicals is currently the Conservatives, the second most popular party is the NDP.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

The Liberals used to be a natural home for evangelical Christians, who care about issues such as social justice. In 1996, the Liberals were by far the most popular party with evangelical Christians in every region except the West, where the Reform Party was slightly more popular.

However, those voters began to move away from the Liberals after the party denigrated and marginalized them, the study says.

"Each time Canadians went to the federal polls in 2004, 2006 and 2008, the Liberals only managed to hold on to roughly half of the evangelical voters they had at the previous election," says the report.

"When evangelical voters left, they generally went to the Conservatives and the NDP, in a 2 to 1 ratio."

The fact so many evangelicals turned to the NDP and the Green Party leads the authors to conclude that it wasn't as much the policy positions adopted by the Liberals but the way the Liberals treated evangelical Christians.

In 2006, moral issues were a priority for about 25% of evangelicals when it came to deciding how to vote. The study found 75% cited other issues such as the economy, health care and cleaning up corruption as being the priority.

ELIZABETH.THOMPSON@SUNMEDIA.CA

"Let's Make it Three!" Redux - Liberals quietly wondering the same thing!

Looks like I'm not alone in thinking that Michael Ignatieff may end up being the third Liberal leader in history to fail in his quest to become Prime Minister... or at least that's what James Travers of the Toronto Star is reporting (see 5th paragraph)

"Relief at not having to face an irritable electorate is not the prevailing Liberal emotion at week’s end. Rising instead is the premonition that, for the first time in party history, a second successive leader may not become prime minister."

That's right my fellow Conservatives, let's make their worst nightmare come true...

"LET'S MAKE IT THREE WITH A MAJORITY!"

But in order to do that, we need to get our act together, put our money where our mouths are, and pick off some of the key strategic seats in places like Ontario.

I've put together a list of a couple of the close ones we can snatch in the next election, and of those I could find, I've provided the info you'll need to make a "MAKE IT THREE" donation...

London North Centre - one of only TWO seats left for the Liberals in Southwestern Ontario
Think about cutting them a cheque and sending it to:
London North Centre
Conservative Association
P.O. Box 27113
60 North Centre Road
London ON
N5X 3X5

Guelph - Lost by less than a 2000 vote margin, the other last bastion of Liberal "entitlement" in SW Ontario.
IF YOU CAN ONLY DONATE TO JUST ONE OF THESE RIDINGS, PICK THESE GUYS! I had the privilege of working with them in the 2008 campaign, and they've got a great team that is committed to turning this riding BLUE! There's a link to PayPal on their page, or you can send a cheque by mail to this address:
Conservative Party of Canada
Guelph Electoral District
P.O. Box 21029
Guelph, ON
N1G 4T3

Mississauga South - Would be nice to take out Paul "Committee Chair" Szabo, eh?
Online donation form HERE

Ajax-Pickering - Mark Holland's, where our new star Chris Alexander has decided to run!
Send a cheque to:
PO Box 31060
Westney Heights Postal Office
Ajax, ON
L1T 3V2

Brampton Springdale - we almost knocked off Ruby Dallah last time, but with "Nannygate" dogging her this time around, her riding is VERY poachable.
Online donations HERE

Brampton West - Donations by cheque to:
Brampton West Conservative Association
7700 Hurontario ST
Brampton, ON
L6Y 4M3

Don Valley West - We lost by under 3000 votes in the heart of Toronto!
Website out of date, no mailing address or contact info... COME ON GUYS!

York Centre - Just 2200 votes
Donate online HERE

Eglington-Lawrence - Joe Volpe, and just 2300 votes!
No online presence... maybe they need a donation of time from one of my dear readers to get that up and running?

Do the math... if we can pick off these ones, the "low hanging fruit" in Ontario, WE ONLY NEED A FEW MORE FOR A MAJORITY!!! Assuming we're going to take back Edmonton-Centre, so long as we keep what we have, WE ONLY NEED TWO MORE TO MAKE IT TO THE MAGIC 155!

I think we can find a couple more out West or on the East Coast, don't you?

A professional hit on Justin Trudeau?

Okay, this is way to Watergate for me... Justin Trudeau's laptop was stolen from his riding office. And that's ALL they took. The cops were there almost immediately, but the thieves were already gone.

Body bag issue a Liberal attempt to distract?

Got a phone call last night from a contact, regarding the whole body bag issue. It got me to thinking today, what if it's just a Liberal attempt to distract the Canadian public from this? Our very own Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper getting facetime with President Barak Obama in the Oval Office. If you're Iggy, that's sure got to suck...

Hey, we all know they'll do pretty much ANYTHING to make sure Harper doesn't get good press.

McGuinty Liberals under attack on eHealth Records, but are the attacks misplaced?

Wow, for once I get to combine both my political and my work life in a post...

The Ontario Liberals were again under attack on eHealth front, this time in the context of significant wasted dollars "reinventing the wheel" regarding Electronic Health Records.

Both Opposition Health Critic Christine Elliott and NDP Leader Andrea Horwath discussed the fact that the Children's Health Network already has an electronic health record framework in place, while eHealth is spending millions to invent their own method of doing the same thing.

All I can say is this... from the eHealth Record meetings I attended some months ago, I can report that up until recently, the eCHIN system currently in place WAS to be the model upon which the rest of the eHealth Record system was to be based. But a decision was made somewhere along the line and that changed, and I'm not sure why. (it was right about the time I wasn't able to make it to the meetings, ironicly)

I for one would like to know why the change was made. I can't make any claims either way, whether the decision was either good or bad, but I and a few others I've talked to would certainly like to know what the basis for the change was.

This issue does, however, speak to one of the underlying problems in Healthcare over all... major projects that are undertaken, only to be thown under a bus when the Government's priorities change. I've see it happen in various places and at various times, under BOTH the Liberal and the PC's. More of it seems to be driven by the sub-cabinet and regional levels, and it causes no end of frustration to those who have to implement these systems.

Again, I can't comment either way on if this decision was either good or bad, but it does raise a whole host of other issues regarding the systemic problems within Healthcare overall in our Province. It's time to streamline things, start prioritizing, and then putting our dollars where they make the most sense. Better co-ordination and fewer levels of buracracy would be a good place to start.

There's an irony to that, however... I think that's exactly what Mike Harris was TRYING to do in the 90's. But instead of making cuts in the middle levels of management where all the waste was, the cuts got passed down all the way to the front line staff. So who was REALLY to blame for the "Crisis in Healthcare" during the 90's, hummm?

Having said all that, it's the McGuinty Liberals who are in charge right now. Therfore, it's their mess to deal with. Here's hoping that they give us a straight answer on what went wrong, and why we're still wasting so much money on eHealth, with no results after all these years.

Tories targeting Mark Holland's seat

Woo hoo!!! I'm a big fan of getting the two Liberal document thieves out of the House!

By the way... what punishment was ever given to these two by the Speaker of the House for their clear violation of the Parliament of Canada Act? Anyone?

Former Afghan envoy seeks nomination
Chris Alexander says Canada and its allies should hold a conference to set new goals for Afghanistan. Chris Alexander hopes to run for the Conservative Party in the next election in Ontario's Ajax-Pickering

Sonia Verma
Toronto — Globe and Mail
Thursday, Sep. 17, 2009 02:15PM EDT

Chris Alexander, Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan, has announced he is seeking nomination in Ajax-Pickering for the Conservative Party in the next federal election.

Mr. Alexander, 41, was seen as a star diplomat when he served as a Liberal-appointed envoy to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. He stayed on in the country following that posting, as the deputy special representative for the United Nations Secretary-General.

Today, he is widely considered the most qualified Canadian observer of Afghanistan, with Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to the region , and Kai Eide, the top UN official in the country, regularly seeking his advice.

Speculation had been mounting that he would seek political office when he decided to return to Canada with his wife and their young baby last month. However, his decision to seek nomination with the Conservatives comes as a surprise to some observers who predicted he would have sought to ally himself with the Liberals.

Mr. Alexander, in an interview with The Globe, hinted that his choice to run for the Conservatives reflected his belief that the party's view on Afghanistan was more in line with his own.

He pushed back against growing doubts over the merits of Canada's mission there, calling for more international troops on the ground and a renewed focus on attacking militant targets in Pakistan. Mr. Alexander has called on Canada and its allies to hold an international conference on Afghanistan later this year to set new goals to reflect the changing reality on the ground.

“Yes, this mission is taking longer than everyone had hoped, or than we expected because the conflict is getting worse. So we need to have a serious discussion about how we can succeed with the investments that we are prepared to make,” he told The Globe and Mail on Wednesday.

His comments coincide with a mounting debate in both Canada and the United States over how the war should evolve.

Yesterday, U.S. President Barack Obama set new goals to boost the ability of Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight militants, but he is struggling to muster support within his own party to approve a surge of fighting forces. Ottawa has also just issued a grim assessment of its Afghan operations, outlining in a quarterly report how Canada's mission is falling short of its military and reconstruction goals as instability worsens.

There are a multitude of problems facing Afghanistan, and foreign involvement there, but they are not insurmountable, Mr. Alexander argues.

Liberals "Go Negative"

And Ignatieff's Liberals SAY they want talk about the "Politics of Hope" (TM Obama Campaign 2008).

Meanwhile, they stick with their good old trusty standby of the "Politics of FEAR" (TM Liberal Party of Canada, 36th, 37th, 38th, 39th, 40th Canadian General Election, etc...).

Hello? "Reform-Conservatives"? Liberal leader Iggy & Co. are still troting out that old "Reform-Conservative" line in their News Releases, trying to put FEAR into the hearts of Canadians with their "Scary Harper" image.

Wow, that's like, sooooo 2004 guys... our parties merged like six years ago, where've you been? Oh, right, I forgot... YOU WEREN'T HERE FOR THAT EITHER.

Well, so much for that line of attack

CBC - "Court challenge of 2008 election dismissed"

Nuff said... case dismissed.

Rahim Jaffer is finished

How the mighty have fallen.

My thoughts and prayers are for the Jaffer/Guergis home today. While I recognize the seriousness of this matter, I disagree with those who think Helena should be demoted for this... this was her husband, not her, and she should not be punished.

As for him... I stand by my previously stated positions. Drunk driving is a serious crime, and the drug posession just proves that he's lost control. Serious consequences are required. The loss of his license is a given, the posession charges may even require jail time. Of all citizens of this country, I expect more from Conservative Members of Parliament. He should know better.

Politically, he's finished... I pray that their marrage isn't.

h/t to Janke

Bono thanks PM Harper

Tonight on stage, U2's Bono THANKED PM Harper for increasing aid, especially during these tough times. Take that, Liberal TO!

If anyone can get me the stats, I'd be grateful.

Sent from my Blackberry

Be nice to your mother-in-law

She might score you free U2 tickets... Oh, did I mention I'm standing 30 feet from the stage? ;-)

Sent from my Blackberry

Iggy's Narnian Forest, questions still unanswered

The Liberals are finally reacting to all the buzz about Iggy's ads being "green screened", with just the following statement... "The forest is real".

Well, of COURSE the forest is real guys, no one ever denied that... the initial question asking if his footage was filmed in front of a green screen, however, still remains unanswered... to repeat the question, was Iggy EVER ACTUALLY THERE IN THE FOREST?

Notice the subtlety the Liberals are using in their statements? "It's a real forest, that's all I can tell you", according to Ian Davey. Again, Ralph Goodale responded to a similar question with, "It's a real forest". Which again does not address the original questions about the green screening... yes it's footage of a real forest, but was he really IN the forest when the forest scenes were shot?

Of course, the other speculation is that he's actually sitting on a comfortable stool at the edge of some ritzy backyard in Rosedale... but that's another theory.

Harper ZINGS Rae in Question Period

WOW... this exchange has got to be one of the BEST RESPONSES EVER from Mr. Harper! With one line he put Liberal MP (and former NDP MP and NDP Premier of Ontario) right back in his place! Check the 6:10 mark of this one from CTV.ca:

Bob Rae: "Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Prime Minister a very simple question... does the Government plan to launch a significant defence of the Canadian [Healthcare] system in light of the attack that's been made on it in the United States of America?" [by "right-wingers", as per Rae's previous question]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: "Well, Mr. Speaker, we intend to let the United States make it's own decisions on domestic debates... I will say this Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Health Care system will not only survive attacks by right-wing commentators in the United States, it even survived one by left-wing INCOMPETENTS in Ontario."

BEST... SMACKDOWN... EVER!!!

Warren heading up the WarRoom

It's official... according to the Hill Times, Warren Kinsella will indeed be running Ignatieff's "War Room" during the upcoming campaign, as a "volunteer". (perhaps in an effort to insulate Iggy in case anything goes wrong...)

While many of my fellow Tories will mock and deride him, I see this as a blow to us... trust me, he WILL do us some damage. Take one of his most recent posts as an example... "Harper wants a Majority because his party hates minorities".

While we all know this isn't in any way true, this is just the opening salvo in what's going to be a nasty campaign... and quite frankly, we have only ourselves to blame.

Thanks to the fiasco of the "HRC Section 13" junk that folks have been harping on for months on end, Warren's going to be able to make some serious hay with that issue. The Liberals will have a load of ammo in the can, ready to go, portraying us as being a bunch of racist bigots. Don't forget the Flanagan line that's been floating around for the last week... "It doesn't have to be true, it just has to be plausible". I submit to you all that our various quotes on Section 13 will give some plausibility to that theme in the minds of some voters.

THAT'S why Warren is effective... he can take a mole hill, and make an electoral mountian out of something. It's coming, and now there's nothing we can do to stop it.

I certianly hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid we're going to see why Section 13 was a bad hill to plant our flag on... why do you think I abstained from the vote in Winnipeg? Yes, the HRC's need to be reformed... but the way we've gone about the issue is gonna come back and bite us.

Car Rollover Outside 24 Sussex Drive

Initial speculation that the driver was Jack Layton have now been retracted...

Rollover Outside 24 Sussex Drive
Josh Pringle - Monday, September 14, 2009

The RCMP is investigating a single vehicle rollover on Sussex Drive in front of the Prime Minister's residence.

New Campaign: Let's "Make it Three"

My fellow Conservatives... I present to you our newest fundraiser campaign... the "Make it Three" Campaign!

What's the one thing that we want all three of these "leaders" to have in common at the end of the next election campaign? Anyone?

Here's a hint... the first guy there is Edward Blake...



And the answer is... [drumroll please...]


The first two, Blake and Dion, are Liberal Party leaders who never made it to the PMO.

Our new rallying cry? Let's "Make it Three"!

UPDATE, March 2010: The MSM finally picks up the theme...

"Since Edward Blake in the 19th century, no Liberal leader had failed to become prime minister, until Stéphane Dion. The polls suggest Mr. Ignatieff could become Number Three."

Iggy's new theme on a coalition

"Compromise as necessary, but not necessarily a coalition".

As in, compromise with the socialists and separatists? What sort of things will he have to offer these leftist parties for their support? Job killing corporate tax increases? A Carbon Tax? A say in judicial and Senate appointments? A bureaucratic and union run "childcare" scheme? Massive subsidies for wage increases to union run companies? Government subsidies for even more money losing corporations? A further entrenching of their failed "soft on crime" strategies?

Hang on... isn't that exactly what Mr. Harper said would happen without a Conservative majority?

An interesting viewpoint from the The Chronicle Herald...

If he [Ignatieff] finds himself, after the election, in a position where a coalition would serve his purposes, he would enter a coalition, no matter what he said on Friday.

But I can’t imagine him in such a position, because English Canadians have made it plain that they will not accept a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition. When Mr. Dion made his deal, we were in terra incognito. That’s no longer true.

If the Conservatives win more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined, Mr. Harper will keep his job. If the Liberals and the NDP together win more seats than the Conservatives, Mr. Ignatieff will take over with the support of Mr. Layton.

That’s the deal. There’s not much point in listening to anything else Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Harper have to say about it during the coming campaign.

Try selling that one to the voting public.

Mr. Harper's 2005 "Coalition" quotes

I see the Liberal bloggers are with glee posting some of Mr. Harper's quotes regarding working with the NDP and the Bloc back in 2005, somehow thinking that this is a justification of their plans to form a de-facto coalition (by signed document or by "compromise and consultation" as Iggy put it) should Mr. Harper be returned to power by the people.

Hey guys, knock yourselves out... let's review history, shall we? WHY WAS IT that Mr. Harper was suggesting working with the NDP and the Bloc back in the spring of 2005, hummm?

The governing Liberals had just been implicated in the perhaps the greatest scandal in Canadian history, where millions of dollars in contracts were awarded to Liberal friendly ad agencies in Quebec. It was confirmed that some of these funds, at least $1.14 million in traceable funds, ended up back in the Liberal Party's coffers. It was also believed, though it could never be proven due to the nature of the cash based transactions, that a significant amount more ended up in brown paper bags to be used as slush funds for various riding campaigns.

So you see, my dear Liberal friends, in that context, it was the RESPONSIBILITY of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to work together to remove a potentially corrupt Government from office, a hypothesis which was ultimately proven by the Gomery Commission, and further confirmed by the Liberal Party of Canada when they wrote a cheque for $1.14 million dollars to the Canadian people. (some surmise that this was a significantly low balled number, but perhaps we'll never know for sure... though the current case in the courts may prove interesting if more names are released in the middle of a fall election campaign...)

In that context, Mr. Harper's comments are not only defensible, THEY'RE COMMENDABLE, for having gone beyond Party rhetoric to defend the Canadian people.

So, you might want to think twice about using those comments... do you REALLY want to remind Canadians of that whole sordid episode? Cause we'll be right there with you, reminding people of all the intimate details of what exactly prompted those remarks back in the spring of 2005.

There's a MAJOR difference between 2005 and 2009. The current idea of the Liberals working with the NDP to form a government should the Tories again win power? Utterly CONTEMPTIBLE and the height of arrogance, that should the people decide that Mr. Harper should continue to govern by giving him the most seats, (even without a majority of votes) that anyone would even consider forming an alternate government in the backrooms, be it a signed coalition or just a series of "compromises" as suggested by Mr. Ignatieff yesterday.

Don't be fooled... if Harper gets the most seats, but is shy of a majority, the Opposition won't let him govern for long, as we've clearly seen by their committee antics, their closed door "in-camera" sessions where they've blocked Conservative legislation, and by using the Liberal Senate majority to block legislation the Canadian people voted for. Even if he is returned to power by the people for the THIRD STRAIGHT TIME, the Opposition has no intention of letting Mr. Harper govern.

Why else has Iggy been consistently dodging the question on what happens in another Conservative minority? Maybe Mr. Harper was right in the video last week?

You'd think that with all this coalition talk...

...that the Liberals would be a little more eager to try and hide the evidence, instead of leaving it fully accessable on their website. I bring to you, in all it's glory, the signatures of every Liberal Member of Parliament, in support of the undemocratic coalition.

Hey Bob, what was that you were saying about Iggy not having signed the document? I seem to see his signature, right there at the very end of the list.

But here's a new thought, maybe Bob is correct in his assertions that Ignatieff never signed it, which would suggest something even more sinister... maybe the Iggy siggy was forged?

Iggy CONFIRMS Harper's accusation of needing support from "socialists and separatists" to govern

While the media may currently be reporting "Ignatieff rules out coalition with NDP, Bloc", Iggy's statement today in fact confirms Mr. Harper's initial accusation, it doesn't do anything to refute them!

Let's go over his statements, shall we?

CTV: "He says the party will seek support and consensus of "partners" but will not sign a formal coalition deal. He said he does not believe Canadians are in favour of a coalition government."

CBC: "[Ignatieff] could make Parliament work without such a deal. "I am favourable to compromise. I am favourable to reaching out. I am favourable to consultation."

Catch that? While he "says" he won't sign any such deal to form a "coalition", he still fully intends to govern by buying their support! Allow me to translate for you... "I'm favorable to modifying my agenda such that it's palatable to both the separatists and socialists, so that they will support my Government."

ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT HARPER SAID WOULD HAPPEN IF IGGY WINS THE NEXT ELECTION?

Therefore, Canadians are left with a clear choice, just like Mr. Harper said they were... if they DON'T want the NDP or the Bloc having a major say on the direction of this nation, there's only one option... a Conservative Majority.

I just can't believe that the Liberals are going out of their way to make our case for us...

UPDATE: Watch the video for yourself at CTV, at the 2:10 mark... Iggy sidestepped the question AGAIN. When asked, point blank, why we should believe him when Dion made and broke the very same promise, he gave some rambling answer along the lines of "I'm more credible".

UPDATE II: Looks like Iggy's STILL ducking the tough questions on this one...

When asked by reporters, Ignatieff wouldn't comment on whether the Liberals would reconsider a coalition if Harper ends up the prime minister again after the election.

"I don't like this hypothesis at all," he said in French. "If there is an election, I will seek support of Canadians to form a good Liberal government."

UPDATE III: O-U-C-H... December 10th, 2008...



NOTE: Busy day, so I've turned off comments, so I won't get accused of "censoring" them again. Will be back later or tomorrow. If there's something you really want to say, send it to cc[at]christianconservative[dot]ca

Iggy "says" he won't form a coalition, but....

...haven't we heard this one before?

Hey, didn't Mr. Harper predict that Iggy would SAY this? Looks like he's right on schedule!

Like I keep saying... LET'S SEE YOU PUT THAT IN WRITING, MR. IGNATIEFF.

UPDATE: Of course, if you think about it, Iggy's response is even BETTER for us... how many "progressives" do you think are going to be ticked at Iggy for limiting their options should Harper win another minority? I sense another opening for Jack...

UPDATE II: Upon further reflection, Iggy's statement today actually confirms Mr. Harper's accusations, it doesn't do anything to refute them!

Here it is, in Ignatieff's own words... [Ignatieff] could make Parliament work without such a deal. "I am favourable to compromise. I am favourable to reaching out. I am favourable to consultation." Catch that? "I'm favorable to modifying my agenda such that it's palitable to both the seperatists and socialists, so that they will support my Government."

BINGO... THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HARPER SAID WOULD HAPPEN IF IGGY WINS THE NEXT ELECTION.

If you DON'T want the NDP or the Bloc having a major say on the direction of this nation, there's only one option... a Conservative Majority. I just can't believe that the Liberals are making our case for us...

Iggy's video spy revealed

So it indeed looks like it wasn't a setup from CPC HQ... it was a Young Liberal named Justin Tetreault, (aka - "Gurmant Grewal Jr.?") who'd been invited to the event.

"I have always been a proud Young Liberal, and have never hidden that fact from anyone," Tetreault told us tonight. "I was invited to the event by Josh Pringle, the Conservative riding president, who knows I am a Liberal."

Tetreault has held numerous positions within the provincial and federal Liberal parties, including president of the Algoma University Young Liberals and northern coordinator of the Ontario Young Liberals, and has served as a director on both local riding associations.

He has also assisted in many campaigns, including Michael Ignatieff's bid for the leadership of the the Liberal Party of Canada.

But it sure smacks of Iggy's desperation that they released a pretty innocuous video, and then jump up and down yelling "See! He's scary! We told you so!" Of course, I still don't recall hearing anything new on the tape, do you? Meanwhile, most of Canada, including many in the normally Liberal MSM, shrugged.

It's almost as desperate as this "protest" by a few OLO staffers after the relase of the tape...

While some may want us to...

... some of us will never forget.

9.11.01

Headline revision - "Statement reveals 'real Ignatieff'"

(previous post title: "The Arrogant Minded Professor?")

The headline of a CBC article is "Video reveals 'real Harper': Ignatieff".

Instead, after reading the Globe & Mail's article, I'm thinking,
"Statement reveals 'real Ignatieff'"

Mr. Ignatieff points to the fact that after he became Liberal Leader he declined to defeat the Tories eight weeks later on their January budget, killing off the coalition.

“I could have been standing here as prime minister of Canada, but I turned it down,” [Ignatieff] said.

Say WHAT? In other words, when translated into Iggy-speak...

"You see, I could have been Prime Minister if I'd wanted to... but you, the little people of Canada, you weren't yet ready for me. Now, perhaps the time has come where you are finally ready...

Therefore, should I decide that you are indeed worthy of my leadership, I shall hereby force an election, in an effort to be magnanamous with my divine power, and bestow upon you the privilage of making me your Presiden... er, Prime Minister.

And then, should you decide to reject my ovatures of peace and enlightened despotism, then I'll just take the reigns of power anyway."

Like I've been saying all along... No coalition? I WANNA SEE IT IN WRITING.

UPDATE: Oops, I guess I'm not getting it in writing... Ignatieff has publicly admitted that he would govern with the assistance of the NDP and the Bloc should he be in a minority situation.

I guess Harper's comments weren't that far off the mark after all, since that very left leaning government would have to select Judges and Senators who are acceptable to the socialists and seperatists...

Asked by reporters point-blank if he rules out forming a governing coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, Ignatieff said he has already been "very clear" on that.

He said he "already refused a coalition" last January because he didn't think it was "in the national interest," and he does not believe he has to "revisit" that question. He said he will be seeking a mandate for a moderate, progressive, competent Liberal government.

"But to have a minority government work in a situation such as that, I would respect my political opponents and I would try to work with them," Ignatieff.

And before any Liberal supporters sqwak at me saying "That's how a minority Parliament is supposed to work!", I'll save you the trouble of commenting, because I won't post the talking-points anyway... Ignatieff's statement proves Mr. Harper's case that a majority is in Canadian's best interest, if they want to avoid a high-taxing leftist agenda being foisted upon them by an Ignatieff government that will be supported by the NDP and the Bloc.

Iggy's not backing down on election talk

Straight out of Iggy's mouth today, via a CTV article:

He [Ignatieff] said it's no longer possible to work with a man so contemptuous of basic Canadian values, and reiterated his plan to bring down the Conservative government.

"(Harper's) already lost the confidence of the House once," Ignatieff said, referring to the attempted coalition takedown of the Tories last year. "He's about to lose it a second time."

You catch that? Ignatieff isn't going to back down, and he fully intends to bring down the Government within weeks.

But this is where things get even more interesting... Ignatiff has still refused to refute the Prime Minister's accusation that he would form a coalition in order to govern should he not win the next election outright.

[Harper] "Let me be clear about this: We need to win a majority in the next election campaign," the prime minister said.

"I am not just saying that because we need a few more seats. We saw what happened last year. Do not be fooled for a moment. If we do not get a majority, the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc will combine and they will form a government.

"They will deny this 'til they're blue in the face in an election campaign but I guarantee it: If we do not win a majority this country will have a Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists. . .

"This country cannot afford a government like that. If they force us to the polls, if they get together and force us to the polls, we have to teach them a lesson and get back their with a majority to make sure their little coalition never happens."

Ignatieff ducked questions about the substance of Harper's accusation.

When asked about forming a coalition, Ignatieff simply noted that he killed the one the opposition parties had formed last year.

When asked again whether he was amenable to an informal governing arrangement with the other parties, Ignatieff sidestepped the question.

When asked whether he would agree with Harper to kill off public subsidies for political parties -- the issue that triggered the coalition in the first place -- he offered no commitment.

I'll repeat what I said last week... the coalition accord has never been formally recinded. Iggy claims "he killed it", though that has only ever been verbally. His signature is still on the original agreements, and based on the language of the documents themselves, they are still in force. So the Prime Minister is exactly correct when he said, "They will deny this 'til they're blue in the face in an election campaign but I guarantee it: If we do not win a majority this country will have a Liberal government propped up by the socialists and the separatists."

Until we see it in writing from the Liberal leader, the threat of a socialist and seperatist coalition is still there. Since we all know that a Liberal's word is untimately no good when it comes to their promises, until I see it in writing, I simply won't trust them on this one.


UPDATE: Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks there's a hidden coalition agenda out there... Steve Janke chimes in with an Iggy quote from January, supporting the notion of a FUTURE (ie - NOW) coalition...

UPDATE II: How's THIS for arrogance?

“I could have been standing here as prime minister of Canada, but I turned it down,” [Ignatieff] said.

Say WHAT? In other words, translated into Iggy-speak...

"You see, I could have been Prime Minister if I'd wanted to... but you, the little people, you weren't yet ready for me. Now, perhaps the time has come where you are finally ready... therefore, should I decide that you are indeed worthy of my leadership, I shall hereby force an election, in an effort to be magnanamous with my divine power, and bestow upon you the privilage of making me your Presiden... er, Prime Minister.

And then, should you decide to reject my ovatures of peace and enlightened despotism, then I'll take the reigns of power anyway."

Why Elizabeth May's leadership is finished

Because she can't win in her selected riding of the Saanich-Gulf Islands. She's chosen to make her last stand here against CPC incumbant Gary Lunn, and there's no possible electoral math where she can win this one, unless the Liberals choose not to run a candidate here... which Iggy has already ruled out, and which may not even allow her to win anyway.

Here's the 2008 numbers from Elections Canada:

Lunn (CPC) - 27991
Penn (LPC) - 25366
Leier (GPC) - 6742
West (NDP) - 3667 (he was the naked dude who had to drop out, but his name was still on the ballot)

Any way you crunch the numbers, she loses. For her to win, she'd have to take 80%+ of the Liberal vote. There's just no way that happens. Even if the Liberals don't run a candidate, there's no way that she wins... some disgruntaled Liberals will swing to the CPC just to deny her a seat, and/or the NDP in protest.

There was only ONE riding in the entire country where she had a legitimate shot... Guelph. With the base built by retired candidate Mike Nagy, and with the bleeding she would have inflicted on both the Liberals and the Tories, along with the MASSIVE support she'd draw from the University of Guelph, she'd have been the one to beat. While it would have been a three way battle in some respects, it would have pretty much been a Green lock.

But you see, there's a REASON she didn't run in Guelph. For her, the price of a victory was just too great. That's the reason she's finished as the Green Party leader... she doesn't have the guts required to turn her protest party into a mainstream force to be reckoned with. For her, she's only willing to go so far, and she's unwilling to make the sacrifices required to get into the House. For her, the price of a Liberal Member of Parliament was too high a price to pay.

Her mantra that the "Number One Priority" of the Green Party is to get a seat in the House rings hollow. Her best shot was in Guelph, but she was unwilling to unseat Liberal MP Frank Valeriote in the process. And she would have unseated him, any way you slice it... she would have automaticly been the leading candidate, followed by either the Liberals or the Tories, with it being a real tossup between the two of them.

With the conventional wisdom being that the Greens bleed at least three Liberal votes to every lost Tory vote, her entrance into the Guelph race would have either sown up a victory for her, or maybe, if every single star aligned correctly, allowed the CPC to eke out a 100-ish vote win... but there are almost no permutations possible would have allowed Valeriote to keep his seat. (FULL DISCLOSURE: Yes, I did help out in Guelph for the by-election and General Election last time around, but this analysis is strictly by the numbers... various Liberal pundits have already agreed with my analysis that Guelph was her only shot)

And that's why she didn't go for it... forget all the rumours that the local Greens didn't want her, they'd have rallied behind her in a heartbeat, knowing a that victory was almost assured. She chose not to do it because she didn't want to take out a Liberal MP. (Who knows... maybe she didn't want to risk her future chances of a Senate seat?)

Any way you slice it, whenever the next election is called, Elizabeth May is finished... I even predict that calls for her head will sound before the last ballots are counted. And she'll have ultimately failed to accomplish her ultimate goal, to make her Party a mainstream force to be reckoned with... all because she's been too cosy with the Liberal Party of Canada for too long.

So then... let the speculation on their next leader begin. Any names come to mind?

Ignatieff: "Disgusted" by Canadians?

YIKES... how does Iggy explain away this one?


The end of the clip is poetic justice, really... looks like Iggy was most disgusted by the actions, or inaction, of the Liberal Party of Canada. Wonder how the Chrétienites and the Martinites feel about that? (notice how NOBODY ever refers to themselves as an "Iggyite"?

Why Jack should go "All In" on Iggy's election bluster

Talking to folks just out of Ottawa, and they say the feeling on the Hill is that Iggy is all bluster, and that there won't be any election call anytime soon... they think he's bluffing, counting on either the Bloc or the NDP to keep the House standing.

But with the Bloc launching some pretty effective attack ads, seemingly prepping for an imminent election this fall (I mean, come on... when was the last time you recall the Bloc paying for PRE-WRIT ads?), I think Jack Layton has been presented with an interesting opportunity... one where he should go "All In" and call Iggy's obvious bluff.

I've heard over and over that Layton's run as leader of the NDP is likely winding down. Yes, he's done fairly well, and has consistently increased their seat count with each election he's fought. I always hear some of my fellow Tories mocking him, but I personally think he's done a great job at solidifying the NDP as a real force in Canadian politics. If you think about it, with the Greens consistently eating 7-9% of the vote each election, the fact that Jack has managed to keep the NDP over the 15% mark is no small feat. He's solidified his base, and brought the party more into the mainstream, shedding much of their extremist persona in the process. While most Canadians would ever trust them with the levers of power, he has made the NDP "respectable" in many ways. But there are some rumblings in the fringes, some dissatisfaction with his methods, such that without a solid performance in any upcoming election, his era may be forced to an end.

As such, Jack Layton has been given a unique opening by Ignatieff, one that may help him and his party to edge out an even bigger beachhead within the traditional support base of the Liberal Party. Right now, the Liberal Party has in Ignatieff the furthest right leaning leader that we're likely going to see for a generation. As the Bloc's ads imply, a lot of his positions are, in reality, indistinguishable from Mr. Harper's. (I know many Liberals, and even some Tories will have issues with that statement, but in areas like Afghanistan, or the oil sands, they do have a lot of similar viewpoints... but again, my point is try to view this from a left or centre-left POV, as the Bloc ads are implying)

As such, if you really think about it, the NDP are pretty much never going to have it this good EVER AGAIN. Basically, the Liberals entire left-flank is completely exposed, and is extremely poachable right now. Seats like the one they lost to Gerard Kennedy could be back in play. Their Quebec beachhead in Outremont might be defensible. A few more seats in BC or Toronto could be in play, where a phalanx of left-leaning Liberals are all bent out of sorts with the undemocratic coronation of a man they view to be "Mr. Harper Lite" as leader. Folks who are going to have a difficult time voting for His Royal Iggyness, and his cadre of advisers who have, in their minds, taken over their beloved Liberal Party.

With all that in mind, if he plays his cards right, Jack Layton may have just been handed his dream scenario on a silver platter. And so far, he HAS been playing them perfectly.

First off, instead of following Ignatieff's bluster with even more electoral rhetoric, he followed up with some level headed statements reiterating his desire to "make Parliament work". Instead of ratcheting things up, he set himself up as the level headed one who's actually in control of the situation. Right now, all the pundits and reporters are saying that Iggy has boxed himself in and left himself without any options, while in the next breath stating that Jack is the one who's holding all the cards. Should he continue down the road as being the levelheaded one, he'll be the one in the spotlight... and for Jack, getting any coverage is a good thing for him and his Party.

Secondly, once Parliament actually resumes, all the focus will still be on him. He'll be able to say that he made an effort to make Parliament work, and that his Party has been the mature and responsible one, and he'll be able to paint Iggy and his Liberals as being the ones playing childish partisan games, thanks to all of Iggy's bluster this past week. With his record of being "The Effective Opposition" intact, having voted against the Government consistently, he won't get tagged as being the one who brings the House down... that blame will fall squarely on the Liberals, who have been the ones holding up the House. There's almost no way he can possibly lose on that front once the House resumes sitting.

Thirdly, by then telegraphing in advance his intention to continue opposing the Harper Government, and with the Bloc appearing to be itching for a fight, he'll have thrown it all right back into Iggy's lap. Should the polling numbers of the last week continue, with the Liberals on the slide and our support numbers solidifying, Iggy will be forced to pick and swallow the lesser of two evils... either pull the plug and go into a suicidal election campaign, or back down yet again like the toothless paper tiger that he is. Both unpalitable options for the Liberals, but one that's entirely Ignatieff's fault, for trying to bluff his way up in the polls with all his false bravado.

Either way you look at it, Jack comes out smelling like roses in this one. Either he forces Iggy to back down and wear another dozen eggs on his face, or he gets an election where he stands to make gains with a good and focused campaign. Since his career is likely over after the next campaign should their seat count go down, it's time to make a bold move. If he waits until the Liberals are ready, there's no way that he'll be able to hang on to many of the seats he currently holds, because the Liberals are going to wait until their numbers show that the NDP isn't a threat. Whereas right now, the NDP IS a significant threat, and the Liberals in reality don't want an election right now.

With Iggy sitting at the big boys table, untested in battle, and trying to bluff his way to a win holding a pair of twos, now's the time for Jack to say that he's "All In", call Ignatieff's bluff, and go for broke.

Because I think he has more to gain than he has to lose right now.

Was Iggy's ad greenscreened? A videographer's take

Got that update I mentioned from a friend of mine, who's taken a good look at the Liberal's new english ad, and has shared some thoughts on whether or not it's a "greenscreen" job. He clarified his thoughts on the refresh rate/horizontal lines I mentioned, and provided a few new points for consideration... [My comments in ITALICS]

The lines [when viewing the video in HQ format] are a result of someone ripping a DVD for SD television and uploading it without making it "progressive scan". [LOL, guess the Liberals aren't so "progressive" after all...] It happens all the time and is a HUGE pet peeve of mine especially when I see people in my industry do it. It looks sloppy and can be so simply corrected. These lines have nothing to do with a green screen or chroma key.

The audio was either treated in post to filter out birds and noise or his audio was rerecorded in a studio and lipsynced. Its 50-50 as both options would achieve the result.

In critiquing this video I am still most bothered by WHAT he is saying. [emphasis mine]

I just watched it in HD and i notice the background movements slightly differ with the camera...which would suggest a faux background. Its really good greenscreen if it is.

So, there you have it, a few more things to debate about the video...

1) If he really is in a natural setting, where are the bugs and the birds? Of course, silly me, I forgot... there are no bugs in Narnia!

2) The Liberals are still trying to get their act together even when doing simple things like producing videos, as seen by their errors prepping it for upload to YouTube. Hey, on the bright side, there is some evidence that they're getting better though... at least they didn't use a laptop webcam this time.

3) The movements of the camera vs. Iggy and the background leave the door open to the possiblity that this was infact a studio job... more likely somewhere in the MTV (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) as opposed to, you know, actually OUTDOORS somewhere in Canada. (like Algonquin Park, maybe? I hear he actually missed the place while he was away...) Again on the bright side, if it is a greenscreen, at least they've done a good job of it.

So, while we don't have any definitive answers on the video front, we do have a few more points to consider. Anyone hearing anything else on this front?

BQ prepping attack ads

Anyone still think there's any chance of a climbdown? The BQ is prepping attack ads, targeting both Michael Ignatieff and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Bloc 'convinced' election coming, readies attack ads
Updated Tue. Sep. 8 2009 2:28 PM ET
The Canadian Press

QUEBEC -- Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe says he's convinced Canadians are headed to the polls this fall.

The Bloc is already planning a double-barrelled blast at Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper, including ads that tear a strip off both adversaries.

It's the first time in memory that it's targeted the two biggest national parties at once, in an indication of how Quebec appears to have become a three-way battlefield.

Duceppe says Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff can't back down from his pledge to no longer support the Conservatives in the House of Commons.

He says Prime Minister Stephen Harper is inflexible and shows no sign of openness.

Duceppe says his campaign ads will show Quebecers that his two main rivals share the same restrictive vision of the Quebecois nation.

Let slip the dogs of war...

Will Dion run again?

Just putting the question out there, simply because I haven't heard one way or another... does anyone know if former Liberal Leader Stephane Dion intends to run again?

Liberal e-mail goof

LOL... just got a fundraising e-mail from the Liberals, and I'm thinking that maybe they need to have someone proofread them a bit more before they send them out to the public...

From: Rocco Rossi, Liberal
To: wouldn't_you_like_to_know@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Subject: New ads – We can do better

Yes guys, you can do better than those green screen Narnia ads!

PS - A friend of mine is a professional videographer, and he made some offhand comment about the ads having a poor horizontal refresh rate, a possible giveaway that these were infact "green screened"... more when I hear back from him.

Iggy campaigning for leadership of Monaco?

Huh? Took a look at His Royal Iggyness' newest YouTube commercial, (cause of course, they're still too broke to run real ones) and at the end, I'm left thinking to myself, "Is he campaigning to win an election in Canada, or Monaco?" (or maybe even Indonesia?)

Yes, His Royal Iggyness... the guy who's spent his entire adult life everywhere OTHER THAN CANADA!

UPDATE: LOL... reader "Ontario Blue Tory" pointed this one out... yes Canada, we CAN do better than Iggy!

Blogging in the boonies

I don't know about you, but I've been having an amazing summer weatherwise. Seems that every week or weekend we've gone camping, those have been the ones where the weather's been GREAT. Yea, many of my co-workers hate me...

Anyway, if you're reading this, get off your computer, get outside and enjoy this weekend! (Of course, if you're reading this after 9pm, I guess it's okay). It's likely gonna be a busy season on the political front, so this is a really welcome calm before the coming storm.

A good weekend to you all!

Sent from my Blackberry

BREAKING: New Liberal strategy leaked!

With an election looking to be right around the corner, the Liberals seem to be preparing for a totally new electoral strategy, a significant modification of their "Liberal 308" plan. I've been leaked a copy of their new logo today...
Enjoy the weekend kiddies, I'm outta here!

Was the "Coalition Accord" ever rescinded?

Here's a question for you... have the signed accords between the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party of Canada, and the Bloc Quebecois ever actualy been rescinded? No, I don't mean verbally, I mean in written, documented fashion, signatures and all? Didn't they say that in essence, they were legally binding documents? Therefore, if they've never been formally withdrawn, wouldn't they then legally still be in force?

Take a look at them and decide for yourselves... the documents do have expiry dates on them, but those dates are still a long way off. And I've not seen any documentation that says, "The accords signed on December 1st 2008 are hereby null and void".

This is the one for the proposed temporary "merger" to form a Liberal/NDP Government...

An Accord on a Cooperative Government to Address the Present Economic Crisis

This document outlines the key understandings between the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada regarding a new cooperative government.

[. . .]

6. Term of this Accord

This Accord will expire on June 30, 2011 unless renewed.

Agreed on December 1, 2008.

Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader, Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, New Democratic Party of Canada

And here's the one signed by all three amigos...

A Policy Accord to Address the Present Economic Crisis

Preamble

The new Government is supported by parties that share a commitment to fiscal responsibility, a progressive agenda and a belief in the role of Government to act as a partner with Canadians and Quebecers. Where appropriate, these goals should be pursued in full partnership and consultation with the provincial and territorial governments.

[. . .]

Terms of this agreement

The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada will adhere to this agreement until June 30, 2011 unless renewed.

The Bloc Quebecois will adhere to this agreement until June 30, 2010 unless renewed.

Agreed on December 1, 2008

Hon. Stephane Dion
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe
Leader, le Bloc Quebecois

Could they be counting on them still being there should the Conservatives win the currently impending election?

I guess here's the bottom line question that needs to be asked of His Royal Iggyness... would he be willing to put it in writing that he won't enter into any governing coalition with either the Socialists or the Separatists?