We both had a good chuckle.

What twits in parliament, upon considering a singularly bizarre homicide in Canada, let alone on a Greyhound bus, thought to stave off the once-in-a-billion chance of this happening again by actually considering a national knife registry?

I want their names so I can plaster this all over their ridings.  What embarrassments they are to their constituents and to Canada.  They must not be re-elected.

• No public funding for Senate candidates
• Individual contribution limits of $1000
• No spending limits for candidates

The much-ballyhooed money problems of the Liberal Party illustrate why the C-20 regime would spell disaster for the Liberals in any future Senate election. In the last quarter, even the NDP had more individual contributors than the Liberal Party. Under C-20, the Liberals would continue to struggle for individual contributions, but without the mitigating benefit of public funding. In other words, they’d be dirt poor.

And the news gets worse for the Liberals. Aucoin points out that concurrent elections for the Senate and the House of Commons would also favour the Conservatives in the H of C election:

By having no spending limits, Bill C-20 would create loopholes that would diminish, if not eliminate altogether, the effectiveness of the spending limits on candidates for election to the House of Commons and on their political parties if elections for the Senate and the House of Commons take place at the same time.

Needless to say, if at any time in the future the Conservatives and NDP are in a position to pass legislation without the support of the Liberals or the Bloc, they would do well to extend C-20’s provisions to House of Commons elections. Given the differences in the parties’ ability to collect individual contributions, eradicating public funding (recently advocated by the National Post) while maintaining individual contribution limits would likely bankrupt the Bloc, cripple the Liberals, and benefit the Conservatives and, to a lesser extent, the NDP.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

He says Bridget and his other kids help him. “They go on for me. They get me Drudge. Everybody watches Drudge.”

Which means that McCain thinks the internet has “shows” that you “watch” like TV sitcoms — and he doesn’t mean YouTube either — not getting the concept of a “site” made by people “online” consisting entirely of “downloaded” clips that you can “link” to.

Maybe McCain reads the morning paper and watches the evening news but beyond that, I make the connection that he is spoon-fed information.

Apparently, flying over to the Middle East and playing at being a diplomat shows that you can command the armed forces of the most powerful nation Earth.

As if this wasn’t funny enough as it is, McCain’s camp was quick to discredit this trip by saying it was “politically motivated”. No, really? Something done by a candidate for President is politically motived?

I hope we don’t have to sit through another four months of this. Can’t we get something other than McCain’s “Old Politics” and Obama’s “New Politics: Same as the Old, But Black!”?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Look at the actual Conservative.ca website - the front page is riddled with childish shots and games aimed at the Liberals, and particular Stephane Dion. The rest of the site is extremely short on substance and high on rhetoric and meaningless platitudes.

How can anyone take this party seriously when they have such a poor website?

Here’s a tip for those of you who are responsible for Conservative.ca, you’re not in the opposition anymore, time to drop the childish taunting (and poor design) and act like the government.

Update: Welcome SDA, wernerpatels.com readers.

Update 2: The graphic was yanked from the front page of Conservative.ca, but it still exists here.

Update 3: Ryan Sparrow’s Comments on Bullet Hole Graphic.

This would appear to pave the way for Donna Cadman to run in Surrey North.  It certainly makes a way for the Conservatives to regain this riding, as the only reason Priddy won the last election was from her long-standing and popular run in both Municipal and Provincial politics.

Interesting development.  I wonder how much it was coloured by her friendship with the Cadman family.

CLARK: I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down
CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Both sides have been taking great pains to denounce the statement, but when you really think about it, was he wrong?

I respect McCain for what he did for his country. He truly is an American hero. And if you had spent time as a general, or Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, like Eisenhower, then of course that would be at least some qualification for the Presidency. But being an ordinairy pilot, or spending time in a POW camp? How many executive decisions will you be making in either of those situations?

Please don’t misconstrue my opinion. I’m not trying to diminish what McCain did, or even say that he would be a bad President. However, being shot at does not qualify someone for being President of the United States. If it did, the GOP should start looking around the prison system for their next candidate, no?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

McCain said such a device should deliver power at 30 percent of current costs and have “the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.”

If the battery actually works, the savings in gasoline should be enough incentive to the customer. This proposed $300 million prize is just a subsidy from the poor, i.e., people who can not afford the car, transferred to the rich, i.e., people who can afford the car plus benefit from the gasoline savings.

The cynic in me tells me that this magical electric battery has already been invented.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Article II of the constitution states: “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The framers of the constitution didn’t define “natural born citizen.” The phrase was added without any clarifying debate. The Supreme Court has never been asked to definitively settle the issue. And so we are left with a phrase just ambiguous enough to cause controversy.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

This because under the politically correct rules of engagement preferred by the Obama camp, only the Illinois senator gets to make ex cathedra observations about such ticklish matters as race and class, which must be treated as infallible. Pundits like Herbert and the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson have been chattering about the so-called “Bradley effect” ever since New Hampshire, but the Clinton camp must not.

Why not? Because contrary to conventional wisdom, it wasn’t the Clintons who “racialized” the contest at all. It was the Obama campaign, seemingly for the sake of galvanizing African-American voters in must-win South Carolina. (See Princeton historian Sean Wilentz’s article “Race Man: How Barack Obama Played the Race Card and Blamed Hillary Clinton,” in The New Republic.)

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

So why is everybody focusing on what Hilary will do right now? Well, the cultural side of me likes to think that she’s America’s version of “nobody’s baby”, Shelia Copps; the woman who was able to turn some of the cogs behind the scenes for a while but got shafted when she went for the brass ring herself. In other words, it’s just melodrama right now. Don’t expect Barack Obama to draw too much attention to himself though; doing so will only expediate those tough questions that will eventually come to the eventual Democratic nominee and the man who built his entire campaign around “Yes, we can!” doesn’t come across as much of a policy wonk.

Clinton, for her part, is now just like the NDP; incapable of winning the top prize, guaranteed third place, but still naive enough to think there’s still a shot that she’ll drag down her closest neighbour. How the media doesn’t know or, if they do know, act on this is no longer in the realm of good journalism. It’s Barrack, not Hillary, whose opinions will be debated in the fall; she’s just a sad sideshow now.

Of course, the respectful thing for Clinton to do right now would be to drop out of the race, sparing the world from more of her sob story. She won’t do that though, since she was in it for blood from the get-go, trying to finally establish her decades-long goal of becoming the first three-term president since FDR. If she can’t have the cake, no one in the Democratic Party can, and from here until August, she will be a loadstone around Obama’s neck, dragging him down long enough and far enough to secure a McCain victory in November. If she pulls it off gracefully, something as doubtful as her becoming the 44th President, she gets another chance in 2012; if she fails to make a difference and Obama wins, she won’t have her next shot till 2016. The choice is pretty obvious when you consider the ego of the Senator from New York.

It’s Obama’s story that is really the more important issue right now though. Surely his advisors must be drafting up who his running mate will be already. They can’t and won’t go with Clinton; she’s not a very good second fiddle as I just mentioned. The race has been very divisive though and this is a major problem for Obama. He’ll have to secure a major Clinton supporter whose personality and record would naturally add to the ticket but also symbolize an olive branch to the Clinton faction. The real story also is that while Obama will win the nod, and has performed well over the past year, he is still only running a demographic campaign that is tailored to the Democratic Party — and even at that, he’s only winning within 10% in most of his victories. Break down the numbers further and you begin to see that he’ll definately lock down the black vote come the fall, but then, when hasn’t the Democrat?

Furthermore, his message of hope is only a one-trick pony, good enough to get like-minded people to give him an initial consideration. What happens when he tries to appeal to independents and soft Republicans? What happens as well when his message isn’t reinforced by a primary adversary who practically parrots every left-wing note he sings, but is challenged and attacked by an ideological opposite like McCain? While the Obama campaign has won the battle against Clinton, it really hasn’t demonstrated that it is capable of delivering the war, and that’s why there is such uneasiness in the many quarters of the Democratic Party about his candidacy.

This week’s results aren’t important because of what the Democrats are doing, but what the Republicans aren’t. If the Dems want to follow through on that desire to retake the White House after eight years of GOP control — something history gives them the advantage for — then they’re going to have to smarten up and soon. Personally, as a political observer, I know that Clinton would be a more formidable foe than Obama. Yes, she’s polarizing, screechy, and egocentric, but she can also stand her ground in a debate. Obama? He’s just riding the outsider’s wave right now and when he moves onto the next round, the fact that nothing’s really happened now will come back to haunt him. That’s because the silence you hear is really the GOP, watching, waiting, and taking notes; they’re effective under pressure and the Democrats have been kind enough to spare them three extra months they didn’t need but will aptly use. As soon as the convention ends, if not sooner, the tanks’ll roll out. And that’s why Obama might be better off shifting attention from Clinton after all!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Oh, and just regarding the actual laws surrounding this whole issue, Andrew had it covered last week.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

When discussing self choice in relation to child porn, she had this to say: “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

So, following this logic, we should also decriminalize murder, seeing as when it is outlawed the cost of a hitman rises, increasing the incentive for someone to kill for money?

I cannot see how anyone can argue that a child is ready to make the kind of choice that would subject them to child pornography, and in almost every case they will be influenced by either their parents, or the pornographer. Granted, perhaps if she was talking about people who are legally children but widely considered old enough to make sexual decisions, (14-17 years old), her position might be slightly more defencible, but still.

I am all for freedom for two consenting adults to do whatever they want behind closed doors. Children aren’t adults, and I doubt they’re consenting.

It doesn’t look like Ruwart will quit the race, despite the increased scrutiny, but it still looks like the Libertarian nominee is going to be ex-Republican representative Bob Barr after this quotation has been brought to light.

Of course, it’s all a moot point, as the LP Candidate has no reasonable shot at the Presidency, but it’s a start. Now if only someone would read “The Audacity of Hope”.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

[…] at this point I have begun to wonder if Hillary and Barack are not in a race to see who can elect John McCain the fastest.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Hillary Clinton is currently written off by almost everyone, including me. She will inevitable finish second to Obama in delegates heading into the convention, regardless of how Pennsylvania and Indiana play out. North Carolina is the other remaining state with any considerable number of delegates, and Obama has that one wrapped up, I’d say. She could carry both of them by 60-40, which is the outside limit to how big she could, I think, and still end up behind him. In the end, Obama took a lot of little contests throughout the race that pretty much won it for him.

However, voters are refusing to listen to the numbers, the pundits, and political experts. They’re still turning out in amazing numbers to vote in a race that’s already “decided”. And lately, they’ve been voting in favour of someone who’s “already lost”.

And lots of the places she’s won are big states that the Dems will have to win in order to have a shot in November. She took the popular vote in Michigan, Florida, Texas, California, New York and and Ohio. She’s won many of the more recent primaries, and she claims to have a lead in the “super-delegates”.

Not only that, but she has more of a chance of swaying moderates than Obama does. He may have a monopoly on charisma, but in a long, drawn out election policies will start to come out, and Clinton is far more a middle of the road democrat. Obama is one of the most liberal sitting-Senators, and even a cursory read of “The Audacity of Hope” would make many conservatives shy away. She has the better organization, has an easier time getting donations from corporate America than he does, and is all around a better campaigner.

Still, for her to win the nomination, she’ll need a lot of super delegates. Now, to get a lot of them shouldn’t be hard. They are, after all, politicians. They’ll want to be on the side that chooses the President, so as to get in his, or her, good graces. So I’d expect that many will wait until the last minute, see how the tide is going, and move en masse to the winner’s circle. And they aren’t going to go against the delegate count. They are humans, they are politicians, and they need to be reelected. That won’t happen if they ignore the will of their constituents.

So even though Hillary may look like a winner, it won’t matter, and I’m one conservative who is sad about that. 

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

So the question that comes to mind for conservatives is twofold: First, can McCain win? And second, perhaps more important, should he?

McCain represents a classical neocon. He tends to be more of a moderate on economic issues, while being a hardline conservative on social issues. While many conservatives would support him simply because of the letter behind his name, I simply cannot do that.

Against Obama, I have a hard time choosing a better candidate. Neither one represents my views, and neither one would make a good President. Obama represents the young, idealistic, far left wing of the Democrats, while McCain represents the old, social conservative wing of the Republicans. For all the noise about him being a maverick, he tends to toe the party line where it counts, and that’s not good.

However, many polls have him at a good pace with Obama, and the math seems to be in his favour. In the present state of American politics, a Democrat cannot win without carrying New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. Right now Obama is doing poorly in all of those States, and is actually behind McCain in Pennsylvania.

Considering the fact that mere months ago, it was the prevailing view (and in some circles still is) that after Bush, any Democrat can beat any Republican, this current state of events can only be attributed to the fact that Clinton is destroying Obama’s credibility, and support within his own party.

Many of the states that Democrats at one point considered a possiblity, such as the Upper South, are complete write-offs for the Republicans. Obama has no chance there, and McCain will pick them up handily.

Basically, the Dems have only one shot at winning, barring some unforeseen circumstances. They have to hold onto the Kerry states from ‘04, which is possible, and take Ohio. No other states that went for Bush in 2004 are even a remote possibility for them now.

but if I’m McCain, I’m looking at the numbers, and I’m smiling. If he can take all of Bush’s states, which I think is quite possible, then all he has to do is take a state with as small an electoral college as New Hampshire, and he’s got the Presidency. Basically, the smart money is on McCain at this point.

However, is that good for conservatives? I’m going to say no. I want the Democrats to win, and win big. I’m tired of Republicans fighting for votes in the fever swamp known as “Christian values Conservatives”. I want a more libertarian party, with more focus on small government. And that simply cannot happen until the party is shaken up.

GOBAMA.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

To be sure, Oprah remains one of the most popular figures in America, but recent data suggest her popularity has eroded. One possible explanation for this decline is that her endorsement of Obama and her support for him may have done more to damage impressions of her than to strengthen support for Obama. Then again, Obama may become the next president of the United States, and he may feel he has Oprah partly to thank for going out on a limb for him — not a bad situation for the talk show queen.

Still, a lesson celebrities may extract is that political endorsements carry the risk of alienating fans, often without the reward of considerably boosting support for the candidate. While celebrities are certainly entitled to express their political beliefs — just like every other American — it is possible that the public prefers high-profile entertainment personalities to stay on the tube and off the stump.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

M. Dion a refusé de voir dans ces fuites le signe d’un malaise face à son leadership. “Non. C’est un manque de discipline”, a-t-il corrigé.

When a political leader has to tell his own party that he is the leader, that is bad. It is even worse when he has to ask publicly for respect and discipline from his own gang.
I almost feel sorry for him — not!

———

The other Liberals still have debt from their previous leadership campaigns. I think the Tories are going to capitalize on this sorry weakness in the Liberal party. We will probably have an election soon.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Next, The Garth has been in a huff this week over Conservative leaflets being mailed out to residences that are covered by the House of Commons budget for MPs to mail out resources to 10% of a riding. While I think there is merit in exploring the relevance of this sort of programme in a day and age when we have the internet among other handy resources to get the word out to constituents, Turner and the Red Star fail to mention that the Liberals are doing the exact same thing. I’ve received periodic messages from Stephane Dion in my mail (I live in a swing riding that is currently held by a Conservative) attacking the government and playing up all the blessings a Liberal government would bring. The mailing originate s from the House of Commons — specifically the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. Garth, you haven’t been naughty with your ten-percenters, have you?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

While it would certainly embarrass Dion to have to register as a Liberal in another province (if it even comes to that), I think it’s safe to say that PM Harper will still be fighting against Dion in the next election as Dion has nothing to lose at this point in sticking around: there is already open dissatisfaction with his leadership; he’s never contested an election before and will never have the chance again if he cedes his right to do so now; he still has a massive leadership race debt to pay off and not many people will come out to hear the “failed former leader of the Liberal party” speak at a $200/plate dinner; his is under no obligation to have a leadership review vote and if his public image is any indication, he whole-heartedly believes he is the best Liberal leader the party could have right now and is morally obligated to stay on.

In the interest of fair play, I should confess that many Conservatives like myself would actually be more upset if Dion were to retire prematurely as he has done a fantastic job in helping us in Parliament. If another leadership race were triggered, it’d be hard to imagine how things would play out between now and October, 2009. The Liberals would probably want a quick race both to stop the bleeding they’ve been inflicting upon themselves since January, 2006 and to keep costs down both for the central party and the A-list candidates who are still fighting off leadership debts. Parliament wouldn’t change that much as the Conservatives pretty much has a majority as it is right now, although the Liberals would be in even worse financial shape than they are now with the extra costs, making it impossible for them to fight an effective election campaign (they’re currently prepared to borrow most of their campaign costs).

These prohibitive costs must be a small comfort to those who have surrounded themselves around Dion though as none of them actually involve the leader’s ability to deliver and because it’s still pretty well accepted that Dion’s days are numbered, with the only question being whether the last day comes before or after an election. Just remember Stephane, if this Liberal thing doesn’t work out, you’ll always have that fling with Lizzy last year!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

FREDERICTON — Federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion dished out election promises as party supporters wolfed down pancakes at a candidates breakfast in Fredericton this morning.

A small group of people turned out to hear Dion rally the troops for an expected federal election.

Only a small group came out for free pancakes?  Ahh… this one is too easy.

Dion was critical of the Conservative government, saying the Liberals would do a better job on such things as debt reduction and protecting the environment.

“We’re better!  Because we’re not Conservative!”  Useful.

He says that includes saying no to bulk exports of Canada’s water supplies.

Who cares?

Dion says in the next election the Liberals will announce plans to cut poverty in Canada by one third and child poverty by a half.

What poverty?  Will they call it “A Prius in every parking spot and an X-Box in every living room” program?  Oh wait.  The poor in this country already have X-Boxes.

Throwing money at “the poor” doesn’t make them not poor.  It merely raises the bar for what is considered “poor”.  The poor in Canada would be considered the top 10% richest in most countries of the world.

And, he said, in order for Canada to compete globally, his party would make university accessible to all Canadians, and not just those at the upper income levels.

Yep.  Because teenagers working at Superstore (Loblaws for you back east) can pay their way through school if they don’t go drinking every night (I know: I did it).  That makes them upper income… unless they take up drinking.  University is cheap enough, and for those who still can’t afford it, they could always get a scholarship… but that would mean not drinking your way through high school either, and isn’t that a human right in Canada?

Ugh.  This election is going to be like a raccoon trying to cross the 401 during rush hour.  A coon with a big red “L” stenciled on his back.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

For those who aren’t politically obsessed, let me bring you up to speed:

The Liberal caucus, just itching for yet another rematch after their four seats became two-and-a-squeaker is now going to be short another member as Guelph MP Brenda Chamberlain is calling it quits after representing the riding for the past 15 years (maybe this is Dion’s strategy of making sure he doesn’t accidentally trigger an election…). Two ridings will have to have by-elections before Guelph if the Prime Minister decides to call them separately although Saint-Lambert, Quebec is a Bloc fortress (the Liberals came second for the record) and Westmount-Ville-Marie will likely retain its Liberal tint since Marc Garneau is running as a star candidate in that highly federalist Montreal riding. Of course, with Don Valley West — famous for denying John Tory a seat last fall provincially — also due to have a by-election, the Prime Minister will likely call the lot of DVW, Guelph and Saint-Lambert for some time in the early fall, likely in September (WVM must be called by July).

As Monday showed, Don Valley West needs no John Tory to demonstrate Toronto’s addiction to Liberal voting paterns, and Saint-Lambert might see the Tories replace the Liberals as the runner up although the outside chance of a federalist party taking the seat at this point is less than the seats of Vancouver Quadra and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot changing hands. Guelph, on the other hand, used to be considered to be the safest Liberal riding in Southwestern Ontario — a title that now belongs to Kitchener-Waterloo.

In Guelph the Tories halved their distance from Chamberlain between 2004 and 2006, where they were 10,000 and 5,000 votes behind the Liberal MP each time respectively. The riding has gone PC in the past though and is very bellweather. The NDP does very poorly in the riding traditionally which isn’t all that strange when one considers that the University of Guelph is more of a farming university than a bastion of leftist thought. The rest of the city, 100,000 strong, is very similar to the tri-cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge with tech, hardware and farming companies, along with factories. Suburbs are growing in the city, although without proper GO Transit and a 1.25 hour drive to Toronto, commuters are not a big component of the city’s population. There is still an agricultural element to the city, although it has largely transfered to the rest of Wellington County. In other words, this is going to be another dog fight between the Liberals and the Conservatives and will be used as a gauge for support that each party has when the election comes.

The Conservatives, rallied tonight by the first of many expected visits by Prime Minister Harper, are running a local star candidate, Gloria Kovach who served as Guelph Ward 4’s city councilor, the president of the Canadian Association of Municipalities and is quite popular in the area. The Liberals are running Frank Valeritote, a local lawyer, Catholic school board trustee and community volunteer. It’s quickly becoming a rematch of Vancouver Quadra, with a little less urbane flare and a few more farm animals.

Much of the result will depend on local organization, but it will primarily centre around what happens in Ottawa during the spring session and whether the voters in Guelph trust Stephen Harper versus believe Stephane Dion. Given the underlying trend of the past twelve months, it’s starting to become believable that the Liberals will begin to see, quite appropriately in a farming city riding, the chickens come home to roost after squandering more than a year in opposition under a clucky leader.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

One happy note that France’s, er, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition Leader might take up is that Miss Hall Findlay, aside from being a decent person in the opinion of this blogger, really, really cannot deliver a speech! Oh well, there’s always Michael Ignatieff and now Bob Rae to make up for the lack of oratory skills in the Liberal Party, right Stephie?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Read more here at Best of the Web…mid way down the page.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

But a provision in the Commons pension plan allows an MP to “buy” more years of service, either by paying a lump-sum, or through increased monthly premiums over any period up to 20 years.

If Cadman bought an extra 10 years of service, it would have increased the pension to his widow by something in the order of $30,000 a year, and to his children by over $3,000 apiece.

If she lived another 30 years, her dying husband would have effectively provided his family with additional pension benefits worth about $1 million — something Cadman might well have considered a “$1-million life-insurance policy.”

—SNIP—

The Conservatives say they made Cadman the perfectly legal offer of a repayable loan from the party to cover his campaign expenses.

—SNIP—

How Cadman actually spent the money would have been up to him.

Now, what is this special provision in the pension plan?

I cannot find an online copy of the Manual of Allowances and Services, issued under the authority of the Board of Internal Economy, House of Commons, 1993 to verify it.

Anyone have any ideas?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Still, Don Martin reveals some ideas that the Official Abstinence wants to put in their *winning* campaign platform:

Well, insiders say they’ll include a scaled-down version of MPDan McTeague’s registered education savings scheme into a platform featuring pledges to fight homelessness, bolster infrastructure, act for a greener environment and bail out the auto sector, all allegedly without running a deficit.

Did your read that? “… act for a greener environment and bail out the auto sector…”. The Liberals want to help the environment, by which I presume means cutting down on CO2 emissions, while propping up one of the largest emitting industries in the country. Is this just an example of arrogant incompetence, or are the Liberals planning on making everyone else sacrifice more so that the auto sector can do less?

If the latter is affirmed, where will the deep cuts come from? Alberta can only bear so much, not just politically but also as far as the sheer amount of impact reductions would bring. The Maritimes are also far too small to count for very much. Quebec is already running around like a chicken sans la tête. So in other words, the Liberals will already be lying: either to industries like the auto sector (other industries aren’t going to be pleased if one sector gets favourable treatment at their expense) or to the voting public who will vote for them based on their environmental rhetoric.

Of course, well before e-day, there’s a strong possibility — around the realm of odds that the sun’ll come up tomorrow — that the current governing party will point out this paradox to voters. After all, if the Liberal strategy actually worked, why don’t they also promise to resolve the Middle East dispute by giving both Israel and the Palestinians rights to the land or that Coke and Pepsi will both share the Greatest Cola Ever award? It might have something to do with the Conservatives being quite willing to also remind voters that whichever way you cut it, under the Liberals you the voter will be paying for it!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

What I have noticed about most articles discussing this kerfuffle, is that both the Obama camp and the Clinton camp have admitted to anti-NAFTA rhetoric on the campaign trail, but both have assured Canadian officials that they are not to be taken seriously.

What does that say about the credibility of either Obama or Clinton that they would do this?

That question aside, I am starting to wonder if perhaps there is another side-effect to this mess. Harper is facing flack all over the Commons over our Prime Minister merely expressing concern over thinly veiled threats against a major international trade treaty that has massive effect on Canada’s economy.

Why shouldn’t our government be expected to comment on such an important document as NAFTA being threatened?

But maybe another question should be asked. If the outcome of this flap damages Harper’s credibility as Prime Minister, then maybe it is, once again, American interests influencing Canadian politics, and not the other way around, as our opposition seems to want to frame the issue.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Personally, I really, really wish that MPs of all stripes would stop heckling — it does nothing to help anyone’s cause and makes the House look like a collection of baboons. That goes for Conservative MPs as well!

On top of that, I’m currently toying with the idea or value of whether the House should lift at least some of the coverage that MPs enjoy from defamation laws, such as not protecting MPs who make such statements during Question Period, or if something is defamatory, having the Speaker make the offending MP retract their question immediately. I think it might go a long way to bringing civility back into the House since it would eliminate a lot of the ridiculous statements that are embedded in QP questions (and which ultimately make it onto the evening news and broadsheets).

Finally, I think we have to take note of the fact that the Mulcair incident came from the NDP. This is criticism for my socialist colleagues, but it should be noted that I’ve seen Tories act just as shamefully (and I’m sure the Liberals do too, although I haven’t witnessed any events that come to mind) on occasion. However, the collective younger, organized (/unionized) or online New Democrats have a long and proud history of acting just as shamefully as the Outremont MP did this week.

I am not sure of what the motives truly are in each case, but it does come off to the outsider as being very self-righteous and dogmatic — terms that the group probably wouldn’t like to be associated with but frankly fit quite nicely. If you read the article about Mulcair, you’ll discover that he’s trying to protect a man that he feels is going to encounter great harm once deported back to his native land because he practices sodomy. This is a cause that, if true, I would support; no one should physically suffer at the hands of government or private citizens for such reasons and I respect Mulcair bringing this before the house. Where he goes over the line though is when he start implying that disagreeing with him not only makes one a homophobe but a racist — as he did with with the Tory MPs present. It demonstrates the lack of respect that many New Democrats have for opposing points of view or interpretations of the issue/situation in question. Read around the Liblogs or Blogging Tories; we have our faults but many of us (sadly not all) at least appreciate that other parties are ultimately trying to help the country/it’s citizenry even if we personally feel that they don’t see the whole picture or are misguided.

To suggest though that disagreeing with a political opinion automatically makes you retarded (or a “knuckle dragger”, which is the same thing in my book) or a war criminal, or anything else that the New Democrats in particular like to label opponents as is not just unhealthy for democracy but unhealthy for peace…something that many New Democrats have a heart-felt desire for.

Again, I’ll state that most of us (self included) on the Tory side are not innocent of breaking these rules in moments of weakness, however in our defence, we generally show an appreciation for the fact that not everyone thinks exactly as we do and that productive dialogue can occur if we stop making every opponent into the mindless monsters of our greatest bane.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

After all the media hullabaloo about the “massive” undecided vote, and the potential for a minority government arising in Alberta, we get what - another PC landslide.

After all the media talking about how Albertans think Ed Stelmach is a maroon, we have what - the most uniform PC support across the province that I have ever seen.

So much for the media. One more case, I suppose, of how much the media wants to manipulate public opinion these days. We know what the chattering class wanted - the death of conservatism in its heartland.

Sorry, boys. Didn’t happen.

Now, I’ll admit that the position of the current Alberta PC party is very much contaminated (some might say awash) with red tories, and as such doesn’t really represent conservatism in a pure form. However, if one thing is clear from this vote, Albertans may have some doubt that the PC’s are what they used to be (though they haven’t been truly conservative but intermittently for decades - the Klein era began conservatively but faded, and itself was a reaction against the tax-and-spend Don Getty, which was a moderation of Lougheed’s more conservative approach… and so on and so on). The alternatives - the Liberals, NDP and Wildrose Alliance failed to convince the many conservative doubters that their vision was categorically better than the status quo.

Looking more carefully, the Liberals and NDP were reduced, and look to have lost whatever fortresses they were attempting to construct in the two big cities. They should consider this reality a chastisement for failing to articulate a true alternative platform.

The Wildrose Alliance lost their one seat, but did put in strong showings in a number of ridings. They weren’t ready for this election. I scanned the returns of all the ridings, and I noticed that outside of Calgary and the south, candidates were spotty at best. And I am not talking just about quality, but availability. Many, many ridings simply didn’t even have a candidate, so there was not even another conservative option for many Albertans to vote for, besides the PC’s. It is hard to make gains in popular vote when you didn’t even field candidates. I expect if the PC’s continue on this road to liberalism, and the Wild Rose Alliance continue to support a strong right wing platform, then they may do much better in the next election.

Addendum: Good insight from Noise From the Right. I disagree with him that Stelmach resonated with voters - I still think that the results reflect a failure of the opposition to present a coherent alternative, as opposed to the result of “Honest Ed”’s personal charisma.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

First of all, I think that the best commentaries that I’ve read so far come from Christian Conservative, Joanne and Aaron; as this post will demonstrate, I don’t agree completely in every case, but the three posts capture nicely the mood in the party right now, as well as making some good arguments. Mr. Tory should feel very fortunate to get such a good group of people behind him since he really needs this group if he’s going to do anything of substance in the next election.

That said, I have to admit great disappointment that so far, the only thing Mr. Tory has released in the aftermath of the most destructive convention I’ve ever been to is a press release that attempts to pad over the difficulties of London but gives little encouragement to the reader that Mr. Tory will follow through with his promise to reach out to the one-third of the party who as able to vote against him at the convention. I have to admit that I am further discouraged from seeing a breakthrough to the magnitude that the party needs after having my first face-to-face with the PC Leader on the 22nd. After explaining to him that he got 6 fewer votes than Ernie Eves did in my family alone, and offering a suggestion on how he could target two groups (one traditionally PC, one swing) with a health care plan I’ve gotten favourable feedback from among other PC Party members, Mr. Tory automatically dismissed it as not fitting with his urbane vision of the party’s policy. After hearing that, I have no more doubt that the man simply does not realize that he has needs to change his thinking if he’s going to bring the party back to 2003, let alone 1999 support levels.

The next problem that the party is facing internally is that the whole leadership process has left a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth. I watched as entire ridings, which incidentally had a strong anti-Tory bias to them, had their delegates challenged on the Friday night. In light of the Andrew Brander scandal that hit on the 20th, and the questionable tactics employed in ridings particularly in the GTA throughout the winter, it would have done a great deal of good for Mr. Tory to announce on Friday night that any delegate that made the trip to London should have their voting privileges acknowledged no matter what, for the sake of being inclusive and representative of the grassroots — two things Tory is now claiming to be constantly. It would have shown that he was confident in his support among party members, lowered the tension level by two points on the rictor scale during the first day, and even guarantee the party a couple extra thousand dollars in delegate fees! Instead, I felt like we were living out a bad Young & the Restless arc and can’t see how those party members who got shafted during the delegate selection process will happily volunteer extra hours in 2011.

Finally, and most importantly, I offer the reason why I am currently not ready to jump behind Mr. Tory in support of his leadership at the present time. It is something that unfortunately has become largely ignored in the last week, but is the biggest scandal of the whole process. To illustrate, I came home on Monday morning and checked my mailbox on the way up to my place. Inside the box was a large manila envelope sent from the PC Party and which contained a letter explaining at length why I should, as a delegate for my riding, vote NO to a leadership review. The letter had Mr. Tory’s picture and the party’s letterhead on the top and a 68 cent postage stamp on the envelope. The question isn’t so much why the PC Party’s headquarters paid for this partisan material with everyone’s donations (including those who don’t support Mr. Tory’s leadership), or why Mr. Tory has not yet paid back the party for all the expenses the debt-ridden organization incurred to keep him as leader (I have heard that he promised to do this after the convention, but have heard nothing since), but rather why such a practice was allowed to commence in the first place!

Let me put it this way folks: if Mr. Tory sees the PC Party as his own personal expense account when times get tough, what would he think of the province’s public treasury? And if you’re a hyper-partisan who thinks that this isn’t a very comfortable development to bring up, then how do you think the Liberals will treat this material in 2011? Let’s face it, the Liberals are ruthless and far more skilled at playing dirty than Mr. Tory’s people are. They will be digging up skeletons from this last weekend all through the next campaign, and I’d bet good money that this financing issue will be front and centre. You’re better hearing it from me now when the public is effectively asleep, than from Warren Kinsella’s negstapo two weeks before e-day. Anyway, isn’t our side supposed to be the integrity and transparency team?!

Mind you, if Mr. Tory settles the accounts now, he might get off with a clean record, but if he doesn’t, he will be the target of corruption accusations that would make the Jean Chretien crowd blush. Irregardless of the political fallout, the only honourable action is for Tory to reimburse the party now. Only then, after that is taken care of, can he begin the process of convincing voters like me that he won’t treat my tax dollars to such a questionable, and partisan, endeavour.

Your move, Mr. Tory!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Ralph Nader’s living in the past. The problem is, he could, once again, destroy our future. True, the 2004 election was so lopsided his 0.38 percent of the vote made no difference. But, if it’s close again this year, we could be looking at 2000 all over again. Nader could be the difference between a new direction for America and a continuation of the disastrous policies of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t concern Mr. Nader. He cares more about what’s good for Ralph Nader than what’s good for America.

and here is more…

Had Ralph Nader not run in 2000, President Al Gore would be finishing his second term. The Iraq war would never have happened, Abu Ghraib would have been nothing more than a fiction in horror movies. There would be a progressive majority on the Supreme Court rather than Roberts and Alito.

Had Ralph Nader not run in 2000, President Gore would have received the Nobel Peace Prize for historic global warming policies enacted during his presidency.

Now here comes Nader again, mid-life crisis and all, a little boy in a man’s body, desperately in need of gainful employment, and pathetically in need of media attention, doing it again.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Now that accusations are coming out that two Conservative officials attempted to bribe the late MP for Surrey North, I have to admit that I’m having a bit of troubles following it. The original source of this new scandal is not only Mr. Cadman’s widow (which in itself isn’t that interesting), but is someone who is simultaneously running under the Conservative banner in Mr. Cadman’s former riding.

Mere and meek scribe that I am, I believe that the Prime Minister’s best move from here is to announce an RCMP investigation as soon as possible to put out this fire in its infancy. After all, why would a woman who wants to run for a political party suggest that said party was also acting against the law with regards to her late husband. It just doesn’t add up. I think what we will find is that, if the author — a reporter in B.C. — has crossed all his “t”s and dotted all his “i”s, either there were people in the Conservative Party who are guilty of corruption, or our candidate in Surrey North is equally guilty of lying. Perhaps more suggestive is the revelation that Paul Martin got an early transcript of the book; a curious courtesy afforded to a former PM and arch-rival of the current one if anything. Again, it might be nothing, but until the truth comes out, something about it seems just a bit too suspicious.

Just a further comment to the Opposition that flirts with this being an election trigger — 2004 saw a Canadian public that was willing to at least let the investigation play out before passing judgment. Heed the warning.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

During a nationally televised debate in Cleveland, the two Democratic presidential candidates suggested Canada and Mexico would be given just six months to make compromises on the deal in order to satisfy the U.S. government.

“I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I have said we will renegotiate NAFTA (and) you would have to say to Canada and Mexico, ‘That’s what we are going to do’.”

Said Mr. Obama: “We should use the hammer of a potential opt-out” to force Canada and Mexico to reopen trade talks.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Tonight is the eve of the Ontario PC Party’s Annual General Meeting; it’s an event that is typically a happy time where various candidates vying to represent the party’s internal offices go out of their way to put on one of the best weekend-long parties of the year (for those who think that we do important stuff like policy development and outreach, um, we do that to…kinda!). This year’s event is a bit more serious though and has a bit more of a dampener on it as half of the party’s base will emerge from this weekend unhappy with a crucial vote’s result either installing John Tory as chief of the party for the next three-and-a-half years or preparing the way for a new generation of leadership to step up to the plate.

It’s been no secret to most readers here that I have been against Tory’s leadership even before he met his inevitable smiting on October 10th. I’m not alone either as various MPPs, candidates, Blogging Tories and other assorted PC Party members led an unprecedented rebellion against Tory’s style or campaigning and leading while the campaign was going on. Some of those have faded back into submission since Tory’s announcement of fighting on for his job, but most have made it vocally clear that the man is a polarizing figure who cannot win against Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals.

Somewhat ironically, Tory’s campaign chose the slogan “Leadership Matters” which brings me back to Reagan. To me, the slogan is an excellent benchmark by which the party should evaluate Tory; specifically, we have to decide on Saturday whether Tory is a small-l leader and whether his work mattered (for good or ill). For any undecided delegate who reads this over the next 2.5 days, I borrow and paraphrase Reagan’s closing remarks during the 1980 presidential debate since it fits so well:

“I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago?
…
Is [the PC Party] as respected throughout the [province] as it was [in 2004]? Do you feel that our [political] security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.

History tells us that the PC Party is the natural governing party of this great province because it knew how to seize the spirit of the day. It was creative, it was visionary and it was inspiring…as were its leaders. I think we all know, if we reflect deeply, that Mr. Tory — for all his merits — does not inspire the people of Ontario. Unlike Dalton McGuinty or Mike Harris, Mr. Tory is not viewed by your average Ontarian as just not being ready for the job but as someone who is unable to explain just where he wants to take Ontario…and that scares them! We, ourselves, should not be afraid to do what needs to be done and do what the party’s constitution recognizes as a very real and sometimes necessary decision. With the McGuinty government locked in to power for another three years, we have an opportunity right now to unite the party’s warring factions, mend broken bridges with different voting blocks in the province and prepare for an upcoming campaign with a fresh leader, fresh ideas and a fresh team. Under such a leader there would be no doubt about the leadership qualities that our party would have; the ability to inspire, to motivate and to encourage trust. This is the kind of person we need to lead us into the next campaign, and as I said back at the end of January, we have at least 10 great names in our ranks who are ready to assume the position!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Today I would like to focus in on the most relayed argument on why we need to keep John Tory around. Well, actually, it’s more why we shouldn’t ditch him! For the past few weeks, a growing cry from the Together With Tory boat has been that a leadership race right now would be divisive, costly and strategically dangerous.

How it would be dangerous to the party’s fortunes right now I’m not so sure how, given that David Peterson tried a snap election back in 1990 and it cost him his job both as Premier and MPP for London Centre…and that was when the Liberal leader was actually popular and not seen as the lesser of evils like McGuinty is today.

As for both the cost and unity arguments, I could easily point out that if we just eliminated democracy right now in Ontario, we could probably enjoy a fairly unified province where we’d save a few billion dollars every year and various Red Tories who occupy the seats of the Liberal and PC caucuses could take turns playing dictator. Imagine all the peace it would bring. Let’s assume for a moment though that the John Tory apologists are right though. Given how much money Tory, Ruebin Devlin, Nick Kouvalis and countless others have spent in the last four months alone, I could take the pro-Tory argument to its natural conclusion and ask why Tory had to put us through this leadership question in the first place. As has been pointed out too m