Rick Santorum: The Harvey Milk of the Republican Primary

Maclean’s Jaime Weinman draws our attention to a most interesting piece of non-satire. It would appear that National Review Online‘s Terence P. Jeffrey is worried that Rick Santorum is a sleeper agent for teh gays:

A profoundly instructive moment on this point occurred in Saturday night’s debate when Josh McElveen of WMUR-TV asked whether it ought to be legal for same-sex couples to adopt children.

The correct answer to this is: No. It was, is, and always will be wrong for any government to hand over in an adoption the custody of a child to a homosexual couple. A government that does so violates the God-given right of the child to be raised by a mother and father…

Yet when McElveen put his question to Rick Santorum, Santorum failed to give a coherent answer. Santorum seemed to say — although his exact meaning was unclear — that although he wanted a constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman, the question of same-sex adoptions was up to state governments to decide…

If a homophobe can’t count on Rick Santorum to Protect The Children from show tunes and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy re-runs, then who can he count on?

Ever the model of level-headedness, NRO‘s Andy McCarthy counters:

… and Terence Jeffrey is wrong. Adoption, like marriage, is not a matter the Constitution commits to federal government control. It is, like the vast run of day-to-day issues, a matter to be determined by the states. There is nothing conservative about imposing federal government mandates on matters the Constitution gives the federal government no say over.

…

If Mr. Jeffrey wants a federal adoption standard imposed, then he should be arguing for a constitutional amendment banning adoptions by gay couples…

I guess a refuation based on constitutional technicalities is better than no refutation at all. ‘Twould have been nice, though, had someone at NRO objected to the substance (such as it was) of Mr. Jeffrey’s (vapid) blog post.

Perhaps, just perhaps, offering orphans a loving and stable home is a better option than shuffling them through the system, one’s prejudices aside.

Warren Kinsella, Member of Parliament?

If you live in the Toronto area, Warren Kinsella may be coming to a riding near you.

Kinsella recently reaffirmed his intent to run for Parliament on behalf of the Liberal Party in the next federal election.

Readers of The Politic know that Kinsella is our dear friend. Two years ago, he launched our continuing Meet the Players series with a tour de force interview.

All of us will follow Kinsella’s campaign with great interest. And one/some/many of us actually hope he wins.

Tie goes to the governor

I generally don’t try to declare winners or losers of political debates (well, not winners – I’ll regularly call out the losers). I know that my metric for judging these things will be different than many people’s, and I know that the leaders aren’t necessarily looking to “win”, they’re looking to advance some sort of campaign strategy. Nonetheless, a few days removed from the English debate, if I have to call a winner (which, I guess, I don’t), I’m giving it to the Prime Minister.

Each leader got some good points in. Each leader had a chunk taken out once or twice (or, occasionally, just looked silly). I wouldn’t say that Harper got in the best shots. but I think he emerged from the debate in the best spot.

Much has been written, including by our friend Richard, suggesting Stephen Harper “won” the debate because he came off as the most Prime Ministerial (is that even a word?). While I agree with that, I think the calm demeanour he wore brought more than just an air of Prime Ministerialship.

The other three leaders spent much time attacking Mr. Harper. Of course, they did. He’s the Prime Minister, he’s in the lead, they need to take him down. But through all of the attacks, Mr. Haprer stayed calm and stayed on point. This coolness had the effect of slightly diminishing the other three. They attacked and attacked, and the got nothing out of him. They made him look like the big dog, all the while appearing as chihuahuas.

A while back, my friend Max Fawcett suggested that there is a lack of stars in our political ranks. In many ways, the three opposition leaders lived down to that observation. Don’t get me wrong, I have a decent level of respect for them, and I think they all did fairly well in the debate, but through this dynamic of three wanna be Davids trying with all their might to take down Goliath – and failing – they undermined their own stature. If one of them – specifically, Mr. Ignatieff – had been able to attack Mr. Harper, score some points and then build off of that to advance their vision (and, no, raising the corporate tax rate is not a vision), they would have come off much better.

Still, this was no great win for Mr. Harper. It wasn’t a real win at all; it was just survival. He was fine, but he wasn’t spectacular. He protected his ground, but I can’t say he advanced very much. But, since he’s the Prime Minister, and since he’s in the lead, he wins any such stalemate.

Rapists Should Go To Jail

By now, I assume we’ve all heard Liberal candidate John Reilly’s argument (and quick reversal) that not all sexual assaults are the same, and not all of them warrant jail time. It’s easy to just publish a visceral reaction to what were, at best, clumsy words or, at worst, a really contemptible policy stance. However, I think there are a number of layers to this story that warrant investigation.

After the outcry emerged, Andrew Coyne tweeted (in two separate tweets):

But it’s a good issue for Tories, cynically/strategically. ie a lot of the same people denouncing Tories for their jail-em policies also… lined up to denounce the judge in Manitoba for being too lenient with a sexual offender.

Another pundit (sorry, I can’t find the tweet) noted that the apparent Liberal policy (I think it’s changed a couple of time during this campaign) of attacking the Tories’ prison-building plan, but not proposing to repeal any of the tough-on-crime laws was silly.

As someone who denoucned the Manitoba judge and opposes the tough-on-crime stance, I’m prefectly willing to admit that if you’re not going to build prisons, you can’t plan on jailing more and more people… unless you want to re-create The Devil’s Butcher Shop. Still, it’s a bit of stolen base to criticize people for wanting to jail rapists, but not wanting to expand our prison population. [Read more]

Income splitting should start now — not in five years!

There certainly may be better ways to cut taxes than income splitting but if income splitting is a good thing, Stephen Harper should plan to do it now.
The Conservative party campaign promise to allow dual-income families to save taxes after the deficit is cleared is just a hollow promise. They have to come up with a more responsible promise than this. It is not even a fair promise. Excluding single-income families is obscene favoritism.

The Election Race on Facebook

As of Sunday, March 27, at 9:30pm EST, Prime Minister Stephen Harper leads Opposition Leader Michael Ignatieff in Facebook fans.

The Conservative leader has 43,055 fans. The Liberal leader has a couple of thousand supporters fewer: 40,895.

What can this comparison tell about whose party will win on May 2? About as much as we can glean from public opinion polls conducted today, five weeks before voting day: nothing.

Hypocritical or Flip Flopping? Take Your Pick…

Ivison points out that the Liberal party has launch its own set of campaign attack ads to counter the Conservative’s attack ads:

The Grits released two new television ads Friday, with the tagline: “Is this your Canada or Harper’s?”

One takes aim at the Conservative government’s decision to sole source the new generation of fighter jets, at a cost of $16-billion. The other targets the government’s move to reduce corporate taxes.

Except of course it was the Liberal Party of Canada that first signed onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program in 2002.

In addition to that history lesson lets see what the Liberal Party had to say in 2008  about corporate tax cuts:

“We will accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts, reducing the general corporate tax rate by an additional one per cent within four years. That means the federal corporate tax rate in Canada will be only 14 per cent by the 2012.” – Liberal press release, June 19, 2008

Public Funding for Political Parties

The Conservative Party will make campaign finance a central pillar of its reelection platform in the next federal election, which observers expect this coming spring or fall.

Under the Conservatives’ plan, political parties will retain the power to issue tax receipts to individual donors. Political parties will also remain entitled to receive reimbursements for authorized campaign expenditures. But gone will be the direct subsidies that grant political parties roughly $2 for every vote they get at the polls.

That strikes me as not only fair and reasonable, but also quite right. I think it’s a winner.

If there is a compelling reason to disagree with the Conservative Party on campaign finance, I cannot think of it, particularly given how well Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the point here:

I think we’ve been pretty clear that we don’t think there’s really strong justification for this direct subsidy to parties. … Our view is that there is a role for some public finance, but it has got to be tied to a party’s own efforts, or to the willingness of voters to actually contribute this money.

It remains to be seen, though, whether the rest of the Conservative Party’s platform will earn my similarly enthusiastic support.

Former Little Bow Riding Executive Responds to Wild Rose Alliance Statement

There are a number of discrepancies with the statement provided by Hal Walker, President of the Provincial Executive for the Wildrose Party (bolded in parentheses).  Below is a rebuttal by Kevin Van Lagen, former Chair of the Little Bow Nomination Committee tasked with running the Wildrose nomination contest:

Hal Walker: “At three nomination events on Saturday November 20th, 414 Wildrose Alliance members in Little Bow cast ballots to select their candidate in the next provincial election.”

True, although only 406 have been verified by the Returning Officer, and there were at least 7 other paid members who were not allowed to vote due to some type of error at the central office. In fact at least two of these had their credit cards charged prior to the cutoff date, but were not on the list.

What do the rules say?

7.6.1 A membership is effective on the date that a legible, complete and acceptable membership application and the membership fee arrive at party headquarters.

Hal Walker: “The nomination process was run in accordance with the candidate nomination rules and procedures as approved by the Party.”

The nomination committee attempted to follow the rules and procedures but was met with resistance by the Provincial Executive on a number of key issues.  Firstly, it was discovered that candidate Ian Donovan had purchased memberships for individuals thus making those memberships invalid.  There were a number of people that tried to pay poll clerks for their memberships hoping that the poll clerks would give the money to Mr. Donovan on their behalf.  This was witnessed by the party official present. Others witnessed Mr. Donovan taking money from individuals outside the voting station in Vulcan.

What do the rules say?

11.1 The following offences will be reported to the PCSC, will be investigated, and may result in the disqualification of an Applicant, Nomination Contestant, or Candidate as the case may be:

11.1.4 Buying of Party memberships for individuals who are not immediate family members;

The party’s response was that Mr. Donovan was simply providing these individuals with a loan.  There is a reason memberships cannot be purchased by anyone other than family members.  It is to prevent abuse and it blurs the clear lines of open, honest, transparent democracy.  Regardless of the intent, Mr. Donovan clearly violated this rule when he purchased memberships for “friends”, to which the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee ignored.

So once again, who is breaking the rules?

There was an issue with the eight (8) mail in ballots that were mysteriously left in Calgary.  As the Returning Officer, I have yet to see these ballots or supporting identification, therefore it was impossible for me to declare them valid and include them in the count.

What do the rules say?

7.8.2 The RO shall supervise the voting and vote count and declare the winner.

7.8.3 The RO shall retain possession and custody of the ballots for fourteen (14) calendar days for delivery, if requested, to the Party. If not so requested, the ballots shall be fully and completely destroyed after the expiration of the fourteen (14) calendar day period. If so requested, confirmation of destruction shall be provided by the RO.

As the RO, it was my responsibility to ensure that the ballots counted were valid.  It would not have been responsible for me to take the word of a staff member from Calgary that he had mail in ballots in his possession.  Further, the staff member was not authorized to validate the mail in ballots.  Those ballots were required to be at the “designated location before the close of voting”.  This did not happen therefore, those ballots could not be counted as they did not meet the requirements as set out in the rules.

7.14 An eligible voter who will be unable to attend the nomination meeting(s) may, by personal individual application to the Party headquarters, request an absentee mail – back ballot.

7.14.1 The signed request must be made no later than fourteen (14) calendar days before the first nomination meeting and must be accompanied by photocopies of the accrediting identification specified in subsection 7.8.1.

7.14.2 The Executive Director shall forward concerns about possible abuse of the absentee mail – back ballots to the Chair of the LCNC, the President, and the PCSC.

7.14.3 The voter must mail back the ballot package (Outer envelope and form, inner privacy envelope with ballot, and photocopies of the accrediting identification specified in subsection 7.8.1) to the designated location before the close of voting.

7.14.4 The Party shall provide supplementary rules and instructions for absentee ballots.

Hal Walker: “The Little Bow Local Candidate Nominating Committee (LCNC), in many instances, failed to follow these rules or maintain neutrality in the race.”

Here is where they go after locally elected volunteers. On multiple occasions the decisions made by the local nomination committee were overruled by the Provincial committee.  It was the local nomination committee’s decision to hold one (1) vote in a central location (Nobleford) and have a convention style vote.  After a complaint by Mr. Donovan we were overruled by the PCSC and forced to have three (3) voting stations throughout the riding.  This was still fair but forced a greater expense and more volunteer time.

Further to this, the LCNC did not want to have a nomination event this fall as it was not prepared to hold a nomination contest at this time.  We did not feel that we could meet many of the party requirements to have such an event on such short notice.  Once again, that recommendation was disregarded by the Provincial committee and a nomination contest date was determined for us.

Lastly there were some issues regarding communication of the Provincial committee’s interpretation of some of the rules.  One thing was said to the Nomination committee while different information was given directly to a candidate.  ALL communication regarding rules and procedures for the nomination process should have been filtered through the LCNC ONLY.  Any concerns or questions by any of the candidates should be asked directly to nomination committee.  Otherwise, why have a local nomination committee?

Hal Walker: “Party staff attended the nomination events in Little Bow to ensure that a fair and unbiased nomination process was run, despite the actions of the LCNC.”

This is conjecture and if there had been a concern about the neutrality of the LCNC, it was not addressed by the Provincial committee during their “thorough investigation” or by either of the candidates.

Hal Walker: “After a thorough review by the Provincial Candidate Selection Committee (PCSC), the PCSC unanimously upheld the results of Saturday’s nomination event which saw Ian Donovan elected as our candidate in Little Bow.”

The LCNC seriously questions how “thorough” the review was and what criteria they based their final decision on.

Hal Walker: “The provision for absentee ballots is specifically written into the candidate nomination rules and procedures in order to ensure that any grassroots member who wishes to vote in the nomination race will have the opportunity to do so – both nomination contestants and the Little Bow LCNC were made aware of this provision”

The LCNC is not questioning whether absentee ballots should be allowed at this time.  However, it is necessary that the proper procedure as outlined in the rules be followed when counting these ballots.  Declaring ballots left in an office somewhere as admissible does not fall within the guidelines.

Hal Walker: “It is regrettable that members of the Little Bow CA and the LCNC do not accept the decision of the grassroots members in this nomination process.”

The LCNC believes in grassroots as we are unpaid volunteers that supported the supposed principals the Wildrose claims to represent.  Local boards ARE grassroots and the election of our representative is fundamental to the democratic process.  This process should not be dictated and manipulated by a few paid employees that are disconnected from the local constituency.  If Danielle Smith wants to lead a party that allows this type of manipulation which shakes the very core of everything the Wildrose purports to believe, than that is a party the executive of the Little Bow Constituency Association cannot stand by.

On behalf of the former executive of the Little Bow Constituency Association, thank you for having this conversation with us.

Little Bow Wildrose Alliance Constituency Association Resigns

I just received this letter outlining some serious allegations against the Alberta Wildrose Alliance Party concerning the local nomination for the provincial riding of Little Bow:

We are writing this letter in response to the decision of the Wildrose Alliance to allow Ian Donovan as candidate for the Wildrose Alliance in Little Bow.

We became members of this party because we believed that it stood for something different. We saw the policies of the Wildrose Alliance as exciting ideas that would change the nature of politics in this province. We particularly liked the open and transparent message that came from the party. This being said, we have now discovered how wrong we were.

As members of the constituency association we have experienced that the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance has systematically demonstrated incompetence in regards to the nomination process. Not only this, we have also experienced that this party is not a grassroots party, but a party run by a few paid employees that are not willing to work with local officials. Most significantly, the party central, with the leader Danielle Smith in awareness, flagrantly ignored its own procedures and rules by carefully interpreting the rules to favour a specific candidate. Two violations that we point to is the buying of memberships for people other than direct family members in clear contravention of the established guidelines of the party; we also point to the fact that eight mail-in ballots were never verified by the Returning Officer, but were mysteriously left in an office in Calgary.

It does not bode well for a party to make a statement in the public about open, transparent government on the same day that a locally elected executive was being squashed by the party central. As such, we are prepared to release the following statement to the presidents and to the local and national press by 10 a.m. Thursday, November 25, 2010 if our voices are continued to be ignored:

“The Provincial Executive of the Wildrose Alliance has declared Ian Donovan the winner of the nomination contest in Little Bow, contrary to the conclusion and declaration of the local Returning Officer based on the ballots in his possession. To this end, all but one member of the executive of Little Bow are resigning immediately. These resignations are based on the fact that flagrant irregularities occurred in the nomination process that were acknowledged but disregarded by the provincial executive, including the leader of the party. As such, the directors have lost faith in a party that supposedly espouses transparency and grassroots democracy.”

Sincerely,

Kevin Van Lagen, President
Jack Derksen, CFO
Lee De Boer, Secretary
John Voorhorst, VP Fundraising
Robert Laing, VP Policy
Bill Harding, Director at Large Kerry
Nabozniak, Director at Large

It appears that in a rush to jump start the party and it’s chances against the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party, the fledgling upstart “grassroots” Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta is tramping on the very grassroots they claim are the heart of the party.

This shouldn’t really come as a surprise, Danielle Smith is a rookie in the game of politics – she clearly does not understand the vital role of the grassroots in an upstart party. Nor can we expect the Wildrose Alliance’s new Executive Director, Victor Marciano – fresh from a tenure with the federal Conservative Party of Canada, to honor and recognize the grassroots of any party. Since the merger of the PC Party and the Canadian Alliance, Victor Marciano and the other party elites on Conservative National Council have successful purged most of the grassroots elements out of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Perhaps this is the new reality of party politics in Canada.

Update: Former Little Bow Riding Executive Responds to Wild Rose Alliance Statement

Next Page »