Canadian Election Watch - Day 8

Steve pretends he's a centrist:

FREDERICTON, N.B.–Future Conservative governments will have to govern in the interests of a "broad majority" of Canadians if they hope to stay in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says, offering a calculated appeal that the country can trust him with a majority.

That's right, Steve. We broads have had it up to here with your cuts to women's programs.

Oh. That's not what you meant?

While Harper says the population has drifted to the right of the political spectrum in recent years, he also says his party has to shift its values as well in order to govern.

"I don't want to say the Canadian public is overwhelmingly conservative, or that it is necessarily as conservative as everybody in our party," Harper said yesterday during a campaign stop.

Ya think? Yes, Steve, there are those of us out here show still believe in human rights - even for Canadians sentenced to the death penalty, jailed as child soldiers, and subjected to torture in other countries. So, no, we're definitely all as conservative as you and your inhumane lackeys are.

"That means our party has to make sure that it continues in the interests of the broad majority of the population. That means not only that we want to pull Canadians towards conservatism but Conservatives also have to move towards Canadians if they want to continue to govern the public," the Prime Minister told reporters.

Pull all you want there, Steve. You can even pull my finger if you want to but I, along with millions of other Canadians, will not allow you to pull the wool over our eyes while you try to convince the country that you're some new & improved Conservative. Don't just believe me, though - bleeding heart liberal that I am. Sit down for a nice little chat with Danny Williams (if you dare). He'll clue you in.

And speaking of Steve, I see Peter McKay is trying to clean up a PR mess for him:

During a visit to Afghanistan just after he became prime minister in 2006, Harper told soldiers in Kandahar that people who didn't support the combat mission wanted Canada to "cut and run" from its obligations to the Afghan people.

"Cutting and running is not your way," he told the troops. "It's not my way and it's not the Canadian way."

That's not what will happen when Canadian soldiers end their combat role in 2011, MacKay said.

Busted, Steve.

Meanwhile, on the NDP front, I wasn't aware of this before I read about it in The Star:

At the starting gate, Layton's NDP was gaining on the Liberals. This time, the party leader reduced his political baggage by painting only his name, in bold letters, on the livery of his chartered plane – with nary a reference to the NDP.

Memo to dippers: get yourselves a new leader. It was bad enough that he helped force out the Paul Martin government (who knows how that may have turned out? not me, but he should have had a shot) by teaming up with the Conservatives but to learn now that his ego is painted in bold letters on his campaign plane? How insulting is that? If I was an NDP party member, I'd quit or launch the push to turf him just for that reason alone. Send Jack packing. The party deserves a much better leader than that.

Shifting gears, if I'm like your average Canadian who wants to do something about the environment, global warming, and pollution and who believes the federal government needs to do more but I don't have time to figure out each party's proposals, how would you partisans explain your party's platform to me in 25 words or less?
 

Canadian Election Watch - Day 6

Our federal party leaders seem to think the Canadian people have very short memories. So many campaign promises, so many previous campaign promises broken. They fill up the airwaves. They fill up the newspapers. They roll out their agendas day in and day out like they actually do mean what they say. Reality check on aisle 4, please.

It's the end of the week and, yes, I'm being cynical but I think we really need to learn to take all of these grandiose promises with a grain of salt especially keeping in mind that regardless of some poll showing a Tory lead of 41% to the Grits 27% (or so), we could well be headed for another minority government situation. And that begs the question, doesn't it? If Steve was so sure that parliament had become "dysfunctional" - and when he called this election last week, the polls were not showing any kind of trend towards majority status for his party - why would he think that an election that could produce another minority would somehow make parliament functional again? (It wasn't actually "dysfunctional". Steve just decided to plant the back of his hand firmly on his forehead and moan like the opposition parties had done him wrong. Going after the pity the martyr, woe is me voting bloc - also known as "Conservative voters". He's so misunderstood, after all.)

Back to my point though, how would an election cure such a "dysfunctional" parliament? Oh, Steve could roll out the word "mandate" repeatedly and use that to beat the other parties into submission but is that the kind of government we want? Nobody's buying this kinder, gentler Steve or, if they are, they must have been in a coma since he took over having just awakened last Sunday nite. Remember the last time he ran and he promised to clean up the house? As Dr Phil would say, "How's that working for you?" This is awfully close to mirroring the US election ie. the Repubs made the mess so they'd be the best players to clean it up. Are you kidding me?

Sidebar: who were the broadcasting geniuses who scheduled the first Canadian leaders' debate for Oct 2 - the same nite as the US VP debate? CBC's At Issue panel gets props for bringing this up for discussion last nite since I hadn't even checked out the schedule yet. I do disagree with one of their panelists (can't recall now who it was) who was concerned that having 5 leaders debating might make things confusing. They obviously didn't watch the US primary debates where practically everybody and his/her dog was on stage and were (mostly) heard from anyway. (They should have given Mike Gravel and Seabiscuit more time but who'd vote for those kooks anyway - the CW (which I strongly disagreed with) went?) Democracy is democracy.

Just one last thing as an FYI. On the CBC's Canada Votes page (which also has election news updates), you can plug in your riding and be taken to its own little blog. Helpful for people wanting to discuss local candidates and for those of you who don't even know who your candidates are yet. They also supply contact info in case you have some feedback for them.

If you're interested in more Canadian bloggers' views on the election and many other topics du jour, check out the blog aggregator that I help moderate (when I'm not incredibly lazy or sick): Progressive Bloggers.

There's a much more immediate storm brewing tonite that I'm interested in tracking. So, with that, I'm off. Stay safe and stay informed!
 

Canadian Election Watch - Day 5

Thursday was housecleaning day for 2 of the major parties. On the Liberal front, Stephane Dion fired Quebec City candidate Simon Bedard after the media reported 1990 remarks he'd made calling for the "extermination of Mohawks". Nasty, nasty business. Meanwhile, the Cons only suspended their chief spokesperson Ryan Sparrow after he had the audacity to politically attack the father of a fallen soldier. I wonder what it takes to get fired from that camp.

Harper sharpened his focus on the Liberals' Green Shift plan by stating to a Quebec audience that it was a threat to national unity. (Yes, he went there). I know that some Albertans have been chanting "NEP! NEP!" in reaction to the Liberal party's new environmental policies lately because 1) they've been whining non-stop about the NEP ever since the 1970s and 2) they agree with Steve's old firewall comment (ie. which was about not wanting to share Alberta's oil wealth with the 'have-not' provinces). A man who wanted to put a firewall around this province has the nerve to talk about national unity? Please.

What he's trying to sell in Quebec is an alternative to BQ separation sentiments by pushing decentralization of the federal government in an attempt to win more seats in that province. It's going to take more than that to win over les Quebecois. The Cons conveniently seem to forget the scandals they've been nailed on (Berniergate etc.) that have had an impact on how they're viewed in that province.

The NDP's Jack Layton was busy in Quebec trying to sell his party's green plan as well and repeated (I think it's become his daily affirmation now) that he's running to be the Prime Minister.

Layton's Quebec visit coincides with the NDP's launch of an advertising campaign in the province that compares Harper's policies to those of U.S. President George W. Bush, featuring a black-and-white split-screen image of the two leaders.

That's a fair comparison, as far as I'm concerned.

Long day for me. That's it for now.
 

Canadian Election Watch - Day 4

Elizabeth May - 1
Old boys club - 0

Jack Layton caved and the rest of the dominoes fell over. Elizabeth May will be in the leaders' debates after all.

Kory Teneycke, Harper's director of communications, confirmed Harper had also changed his mind, telling reporters that while the Conservatives still objected to May's participation on principle, he would no longer oppose May's inclusion.

"We don't think she should be there, but if the NDP have decided they're changing their position, we will not stand alone," he said.

In an interview with CBC News, Tory campaign co-chairman David Emerson said the reversal was a case of the prime minister "reacting to changing circumstances."

Shorter Emerson: Steve didn't want to look like the only ass.

The quote du jour though goes to the ever feisty PC premier Danny Williams who, after calling Steve a "fraud" as part of his "ABC" (Anybody But Conservatives) campaign said:

"If [he] is prepared to slash program spending when he has large surpluses and break his written word as the leader of a minority government, the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians — and indeed all Canadians — will be very bleak under a Conservative majority," Williams said.

Exactly.

But wait, there's more...

Williams called on Harper to stop using the puffin — the provincial bird of Newfoundland and Labrador — in attack ads.

"Leave our provincial bird out of [your] nasty, disgusting, personal attack ads," said Williams.

"The people of this province didn't appreciate being used by you for our votes the last time and our birds don't particularly like being used by you, either," he said.

Take that, Steve! Leave the puffins alone!!

Meanwhile, is Steve trying to go for the sympathy vote now? Check out this headline: Harper says he hates attention he gets. Gee. Pass the tissues. Is that why he's practically cloistered himself in his office - refusing to talk to the press since he was elected? Because he's shy? Pfffft... It would be so much easier if you were a dictator, right Steve?

In the meantime, Steve tried to score political points amid the news that Canadian support for the war is slipping and on a day one of our fallen soldiers was being returned home by suddenly declaring that he wants Canada's military commitment in Afghanistan to end in 2011.

The Tories have been attempting to soften Harper image for weeks with ads showing the personal side of Stephen Harper.

In his breakfast with reporters - a first as prime minister - he revealed that he cried the first few times he had to break the news of a Canadian soldier's death in Afghanistan to his parents. [No one suffers more than you, right? -catnip]

The moves also appear designed to change the channel on a campaign dominated by distractions, from the pooping puffin ad to the withdrawal from the race of the Conservative candidate in Halifax after it was learned she had a criminal record.

If you want to score some real points, Steve, bring the troops home now and say something about the endless civilian deaths over there - not to mention the fact that US troops are flagrantly violating Pakistan's sovereignty by using ground troops on Pakistan's side of the border. Why is Canada still a part of this charade?

In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the conflict.

Civilians used as shields

Of that number, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces, and 173 died during U.S. or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by U.S. or NATO air strikes.

Steve said that he thought 10 years of war (by 2011) in Afghanistan would be enough. 10 years. That just leaves me speechless.

And, believe me, the Liberal party doesn't get a free ride from me for its part in pushing this failed mission either.

That's all I have for now...
 

Schwarzenegger: Democrat?

From the "You've got to be kidding!" file comes this:

Arnold Schwarzenegger (D-CA)
by kos
Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:38:05 AM PDT

Early this year, I found myself speaking to a California legislator high up on the leadership. Democrats had just lost a governors race that looked winnable six months before Election Day, but turned into an easy romp by the Terminator.

But rather than be upset, instead of gearing up for battle, this legislator was feeling quite optimistic and content. "We're going to be working with a Democratic governor," he told me.

And while not even a real Democratic governor is perfect, fact is that Schwarzenegger is for all intent purposes a Democrat to the consternation of Republicans and quiet glee of Democrats in the great Golden State.

kos has also dubbed Schwarzenegger with the "progressive" label on what is supposed to be a "progressive" Democrat site. Quick kos, define "progressive", because from what I've seen that term on your site equals "centrist" and it now appears that that applies not only to Dems, but to Republicans as well.

As this commenter and others point out, Arnold is hardly worthy of the label "progressive" or "Democrat" (unless you're referring to the Blue Dog Dem sellout bunch who might as well be Republicans).

We have a feisty Conservative premier here in Canada, Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador, who fiercely opposes our Conservative prime minister, but none would ever slap the label "Liberal" beside his name, suddenly believing he'd undergone some political conversion on the road to Damascus. Williams sees the hard right turn Harper is taking but Williams is a Conservative. Period. And Schwarzenegger is a Republican, unless and until he quits the party or says otherwise.

The fact that the owner of what is (incorrectly) dubbed as the biggest "liberal" site in Amercian politics* would so heartily throw his support behind a Republican - any Republican - and shill for the party of death, destruction and torture speaks volumes.


*kos is currently working on a book that will define his new political label: "Libertarian Democrat" - whatever that is supposed to mean. See if you can figure it out.

(h/t to Marisacat's blog for this story.)
 

Danny Williams' Fighting Words

We will not allow you to defeat us in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be over my dead body.

That was the message Nfld and Labrador premier Danny Williams sent to Stephen Harper in an appearance on CBC's Politics show on Wednesday. Williams was referring to a comment Harper made in 2002 in which he said, "There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism." Williams used that as a reminder to Harper that maritimers are not about to bow to whatever he decides to throw at them.

This, of course, comes on the same day that Williams has launched attack ads over Harper's broken promises on equalization.

Williams has launched a retaliatory attack against the recent federal budget, which he says serves as a betrayal of his province. Williams accuses the prime minister of breaking a promise to fix equalization and address the so-called fiscal imbalance.

Harper insists his government hasn't broken any promises and has come up with a solution that benefits Newfoundland and Labrador. He says Williams is overreacting.

"What we're seeing is confrontation for the sake of confrontation," the prime minister said in question period Wednesday.

Not exactly.

And if there's anyone who does "confrontation for the sake of confrontation", it's definitely Harper and his cronies who are still operating in opposition party mode.

Harper had promised that the budget's solution to the fiscal imbalance would fully exclude non-renewable natural resource revenue from the equalization formula used to calculate payments to have-not provinces.

Williams told CTV Newnset it wasn't a "flippant" promise, but "a very strong commitment" made in letters to premiers, in election blueprints, in speeches and in a pamphlet sent to households in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The purpose of the ads, he said, is to make Canadians aware that "the prime minister has broken a promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans, Nova Scotians and Saskatchewanians and in fact it could happen to them."

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's new budget allows receiving provinces to choose whether their equalization payment is calculated based on a formula that includes 50 per cent of their revenue from non-renewable resources, or excludes all of it. The option was recommended in a report to the government by Al O'Brien.

Williams says both options mean a loss for Newfoundland and Labrador, while other provinces stand to gain from the new arrangement.

The new budget -- which survived a confidence vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday with the support of the Bloc Quebecois -- also establishes a cap on how much have-not provinces can receive as resource revenues rise -- another measure Williams is opposed to.

"The problem is that in that same brochure, in that same householder, and in those commitments, there's no mention of a cap, in fact in the brochure that was sent around it specifically said there's no cap," Williams said.

"Well the O'Brien report has a cap and that's basically what cuts off the benefit to Newfoundland and Labrador, to Nova Scotia and of course to Saskatchewan. So it basically neutralizes any benefit that was coming from the deductibility of non-renewable resource revenue."

Williams also claims the new budget reverses progress made with 2005's Atlantic accord, a deal signed with former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin. It allowed Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to keep their oil revenue without having their equalization payments docked.

Williams certainly isn't one to walk away quietly from any fight and this one has already become ugly:

Opposition MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador blasted the equalization choices offered to their province.

"Why did the prime minister lie?" Liberal Bill Matthews, of Burin-St.George's, asked in the House of Commons.

The comment prompted Speaker Peter Milliken to ask Matthews to withdraw his remark. It is considered unparliamentary language to accuse a member of Parliament of lying.

Matthews refused, saying he'd be lying to his constituents if he were to say the prime minister honoured his commitment.

The drama continues...and I doubt very much that Harper can come out of this one without any permanent scars.