Shakedown, Ezra Levant's impassioned take on how Human Rights Commissions are underming our individual rights, has inspired lots of people.
And one such person is a young performer named Lindy Vopnfjord who wrote a song to honour Ezra and his battle.
Here is Lindy singing it at the recent Liberty Summer Seminar.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Free Advice for the Tories
Kory Teneycke stepped down as Director of Communications for Prime Minister Harper today.
So over at the Women's Post, I posted some free advice for his replacement.
Needless to say, I don't think I'm in the running for the job.
So over at the Women's Post, I posted some free advice for his replacement.
Needless to say, I don't think I'm in the running for the job.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Can libertarians and liberals get along?
One of the speakers at this year's Liberty Summer Seminar was the Cato Institute's Will Wilkinson, who made an intriguing argument.
Libertarians he said should seek to align themselves with left-wing-liberals.
He says such an alliance would create a new political force he calls "liberaltarianism” or “progressive fusionism."
On the surface that sounds pretty strange, but in some ways his vision makes sense.
Certainly, for instance, on some social issues and foreign policy matters, liberals and libertarians do share common philosophic ground.
Plus once upon a time, back in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, libertarians were liberals, so there is also a common historic bond.
And finally, so-called conservatives in both the Republican and Conservative Parties have not shown themselves to be all that reliable as friends to those of us who cherish smaller government and free enterprise.
In fact, Prime Minister Stephen Harper essentially turfed libertarians from his party.
So in a sense libertarians in both Canada and the United States are political refugees looking for a new home. So why not try and hook up with liberals?
But can pro-big government liberals and anti-government libertarians really get along?
Yes, says Wilkinson.
But both sides would need to compromise.
Libertarians, he says, would have to accept the value of and need for the welfare state while liberals would need to concede that only unfettered free markets can produce the wealth necessary to fund things like the welfare state.
Like I said, it's an intriguing idea, but let's face it "progressive fusionism" has about as much chance as happening as Rush Limbaugh has of being named Moveon.org's "Man of the Year".
Besides the fact that liberals just don't like capitalism, there are other cultural issues which divide the two groups such as gun rights.
Yet, I don't want to be too dismissive of Wilkinson's plan.
For instance, I fully support the idea of libertarians infiltrating the Liberal Party to push it in the right direction. (The best way to convince the Liberals to adopt a pro-freedom agenda, is to suggest it will help them win an election.)
At the same time, libertarians should not give up on the Tories, the more natural allies of freedom.
Indeed, in the best of all worlds, libertarian philosophy would be an influence in both parties, and we would see the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition battling each other as to who would cut taxes the most.
Hey, it could happen.
Libertarians he said should seek to align themselves with left-wing-liberals.
He says such an alliance would create a new political force he calls "liberaltarianism” or “progressive fusionism."
On the surface that sounds pretty strange, but in some ways his vision makes sense.
Certainly, for instance, on some social issues and foreign policy matters, liberals and libertarians do share common philosophic ground.
Plus once upon a time, back in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, libertarians were liberals, so there is also a common historic bond.
And finally, so-called conservatives in both the Republican and Conservative Parties have not shown themselves to be all that reliable as friends to those of us who cherish smaller government and free enterprise.
In fact, Prime Minister Stephen Harper essentially turfed libertarians from his party.
So in a sense libertarians in both Canada and the United States are political refugees looking for a new home. So why not try and hook up with liberals?
But can pro-big government liberals and anti-government libertarians really get along?
Yes, says Wilkinson.
But both sides would need to compromise.
Libertarians, he says, would have to accept the value of and need for the welfare state while liberals would need to concede that only unfettered free markets can produce the wealth necessary to fund things like the welfare state.
Like I said, it's an intriguing idea, but let's face it "progressive fusionism" has about as much chance as happening as Rush Limbaugh has of being named Moveon.org's "Man of the Year".
Besides the fact that liberals just don't like capitalism, there are other cultural issues which divide the two groups such as gun rights.
Yet, I don't want to be too dismissive of Wilkinson's plan.
For instance, I fully support the idea of libertarians infiltrating the Liberal Party to push it in the right direction. (The best way to convince the Liberals to adopt a pro-freedom agenda, is to suggest it will help them win an election.)
At the same time, libertarians should not give up on the Tories, the more natural allies of freedom.
Indeed, in the best of all worlds, libertarian philosophy would be an influence in both parties, and we would see the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition battling each other as to who would cut taxes the most.
Hey, it could happen.
Stopping freedom at the border
One interesting sidebar to the Liberty Summer Seminar this year was that a couple of scheduled speakers were denied entry at the Canadian/American border.
That would be Jason Talley and Pete Eyre of Motorhome Diaries.
What's Motorhome Diaries?
Well Talley and Eyre -- a couple of hard core libertarians -- are travelling across America in an RV "searching for freedom" and videotaping as they go.
They were supposed to make an appearance at the LSS, but alas overzealous Canadian border guards stopped their RV, searched their vehicle for "heinous propaganda" and ultimately told them to head back south.
Kady O'Malley has the whole story.
It's pretty sad when people talking about "freedom" aren't allowed in the country.
That would be Jason Talley and Pete Eyre of Motorhome Diaries.
What's Motorhome Diaries?
Well Talley and Eyre -- a couple of hard core libertarians -- are travelling across America in an RV "searching for freedom" and videotaping as they go.
They were supposed to make an appearance at the LSS, but alas overzealous Canadian border guards stopped their RV, searched their vehicle for "heinous propaganda" and ultimately told them to head back south.
Kady O'Malley has the whole story.
It's pretty sad when people talking about "freedom" aren't allowed in the country.
Liberty in the summer
Had a great time at the Liberty Summer Seminar.
Yes enough rain fell during the weekend to encourage talk of building an ark, but that didn't dampen our spirits.
The best thing about the seminar, besides the great speakers and the wonderul meals is the people you get to meet.
I had chance to meet bloggers Dr. Roy and Hugh MacIntyre and Conservative MP Scott Reid and Ontario MPP Randy Hillier, plus a bunch of other great folks.
I am already looking forward to next year's event.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Bloc-ing the Liberals
CFRB talk show host John Moore has an interesting column in the National Post today suggesting the Conservative Party is essentially implementing a "scorched earth" policy in Quebec.
That is the Tories, who are done like in dinner in Quebec, are deliberating making moves designed to drive voters into the Bloc Quebecois camp, as this will block any Liberal resurgence in the province.
If that's indeed what the Conservatives are doing, than it's a good strategy, a strategy which would ensure the Conservatives maintain a minority government.
In fact, I suggested they do something similar nearly four years ago.
That is the Tories, who are done like in dinner in Quebec, are deliberating making moves designed to drive voters into the Bloc Quebecois camp, as this will block any Liberal resurgence in the province.
If that's indeed what the Conservatives are doing, than it's a good strategy, a strategy which would ensure the Conservatives maintain a minority government.
In fact, I suggested they do something similar nearly four years ago.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Cat Attack
Rondi Adamson has an idea for an attack ad which is sure to scratch and claw away at the credibility of Liberal leader Michael "The Russian" Ignatieff.
Roughing it for freedom
Here's my latest column in the Sun Media chain.
It's about how I found freedom in the wilderness, or at least what I consider to be wilderness.
It's about how I found freedom in the wilderness, or at least what I consider to be wilderness.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Fiscal conservatives MIA
Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has a great column in the National Post today, asking the key question: Where did all the fiscal conservatives go?
I am not sure where they are, but I sure hope they return soon.
Canada needs them!
I am not sure where they are, but I sure hope they return soon.
Canada needs them!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Posting at the Post
FYI -- The National Post will now be posting stuff from my blog over at its online Full Comment section.
The final frontier
As we all know, this year marks the 40th anniversary of one of the most incredible achievements in human history.
But I don't want to write about the '69 New York Mets winning the World Series.
I want to talk about outer space.
After all, it was on this date 40 years ago that Neil Armstrong found a giant monolith on the moon, which caused his computer to go crazy and a giant baby to float in space.
Wait, that was 2001 Space Odyssey.
Which leads me to another question: Why is it in the year 2009 - a full eight years after 2001 -- we don't have lunar colonies or massive hotel-like space stations that emit Beethoven symphonies?
Instead all we have is the Space Shuttle, basically a glorified space taxi, except real taxis probably have a better safety record.
What's wrong? Why are we not going bolder where no man has gone before?
Maybe the problem is that our space efforts are a government operation.
In my younger more naive days, I belonged to a group called the L5 Society, which pushed the idea of private sector space colonization.
But I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
That's why these days I am much less of a space enthusiast. Seems to me the idea of travelling to other planets is nothing but a pipe dream, that's not really worth the expense of tax dollars.
On the bright side, I understand aliens with futuristic space technology have landed which may enable us to travel faster than the speed of light.
Wait, that was the plot of Star Trek: First Contact.
But I don't want to write about the '69 New York Mets winning the World Series.
I want to talk about outer space.
After all, it was on this date 40 years ago that Neil Armstrong found a giant monolith on the moon, which caused his computer to go crazy and a giant baby to float in space.
Wait, that was 2001 Space Odyssey.
Which leads me to another question: Why is it in the year 2009 - a full eight years after 2001 -- we don't have lunar colonies or massive hotel-like space stations that emit Beethoven symphonies?
Instead all we have is the Space Shuttle, basically a glorified space taxi, except real taxis probably have a better safety record.
What's wrong? Why are we not going bolder where no man has gone before?
Maybe the problem is that our space efforts are a government operation.
In my younger more naive days, I belonged to a group called the L5 Society, which pushed the idea of private sector space colonization.
But I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
That's why these days I am much less of a space enthusiast. Seems to me the idea of travelling to other planets is nothing but a pipe dream, that's not really worth the expense of tax dollars.
On the bright side, I understand aliens with futuristic space technology have landed which may enable us to travel faster than the speed of light.
Wait, that was the plot of Star Trek: First Contact.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Is big government progressive?
A couple of days ago the Toronto Star ran a column by Professor Arthur Haberman who was lamenting the decline of "progressive" conservatism.
I responded with a letter to the editor, which the Star published today:
In his opinion piece, Arthur Haberman suggested bigger and more costly government is "progressive."
But if by "progressive" he means moving the country forward or bettering the condition of Canadians, he's wrong.
Big government, after all, means high taxes, burdensome regulations and bureaucrats meddling in the private sector, all of which hamper productivity, retard economic growth and undermine our standard of living.
True progress only comes when government is small and when it respects the freedom of entrepreneurs to innovate and create wealth.
I responded with a letter to the editor, which the Star published today:
In his opinion piece, Arthur Haberman suggested bigger and more costly government is "progressive."
But if by "progressive" he means moving the country forward or bettering the condition of Canadians, he's wrong.
Big government, after all, means high taxes, burdensome regulations and bureaucrats meddling in the private sector, all of which hamper productivity, retard economic growth and undermine our standard of living.
True progress only comes when government is small and when it respects the freedom of entrepreneurs to innovate and create wealth.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Politics of Civility
Recently, Professor Geoffrey Stevens wrote a column in the Guelph Mercury which went after Prime Minister Harper for his lack of "civility".
I responded with a letter to the editor, which the Mercury has yet to publish.
So I will reprint it here:
In the column “What we know about Harper isn’t nice,” July 13, Geoffrey Stevens complains the “loss of civility in the politics of the Harper era is startling.”
And one of the things which startles Stevens is the Conservative Party’s use of “attack ads.”
Yet the Conservatives are not the first party to use such ads to score points against political opponents.
The Liberal Party of Canada, for instance, ran vicious attack ads in the 2004 federal election designed to make Conservative leader Stephen Harper look like a war-mongering, woman-hating, gun-loving, clone of Satan.
I wonder if Stevens condemned those ads as uncivil, or is it only when Liberals are attacked that he takes offence?
The fact is, uncivil or not, attack ads work.
That's why both the Liberal and Conservatives have used them in the past; it's why they will both use them in the future.
I responded with a letter to the editor, which the Mercury has yet to publish.
So I will reprint it here:
In the column “What we know about Harper isn’t nice,” July 13, Geoffrey Stevens complains the “loss of civility in the politics of the Harper era is startling.”
And one of the things which startles Stevens is the Conservative Party’s use of “attack ads.”
Yet the Conservatives are not the first party to use such ads to score points against political opponents.
The Liberal Party of Canada, for instance, ran vicious attack ads in the 2004 federal election designed to make Conservative leader Stephen Harper look like a war-mongering, woman-hating, gun-loving, clone of Satan.
I wonder if Stevens condemned those ads as uncivil, or is it only when Liberals are attacked that he takes offence?
The fact is, uncivil or not, attack ads work.
That's why both the Liberal and Conservatives have used them in the past; it's why they will both use them in the future.
Dissecting a political video
Some guy (gal?) who calls himself (herself) "Tory Boy" has produced a little video to defend the Conservative government.
It's a nice little try, but as a political ad it has a few problems.
First, the ad leads off telling us how the Conservative government's "economic action plan" is "protecting jobs."
Let's just ignore the ideological issue as to how someone who calls himself/herself a Conservative could possibly think massive deficits somehow protects jobs.
The more practical problem is the ad is supposed to be an attack on the Liberals; more specifically it's supposed to be an attack on how the Liberal "war room" manufactures issues.
So if you are going to attack, just keep the ad an attack -- don't mix in a positive message.
Secondly and more seriously, the spot asks viewers to relive the "wafer" incident and the "showing up late for the G8 photo-op summit" fiasco. And yes, I know the ad's purpose is to refute the idea that these are real news stories, but all you are doing is reminding people of Harper's screw ups.
As a Tory partisan you want people to forget that stuff.
And that stuff about Patrick Brown is just confusing.
The only effective part of the ad comes at the end when it blasts Liberal Leader Micheal Ignatieff for having "no policies."
That should have been the focus of the whole spot.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Helping so-cons win
The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies has organized an event called "Campaign Essentials for Social Conservatives".
Scheduled to take place on July 27th in Ottawa, the conference is designed to help social conservatives learn the tricks of the trade when it comes to running for public office.
The conference includes sessions on: "Reaching the Young", "Communication Essentials" and "How to be a Catalyst for Change."
What's interesting about this event is its flexibility: You can participate in one, several, or all sessions in any combination. Pay only for what you attend.
Learn more here.
Scheduled to take place on July 27th in Ottawa, the conference is designed to help social conservatives learn the tricks of the trade when it comes to running for public office.
The conference includes sessions on: "Reaching the Young", "Communication Essentials" and "How to be a Catalyst for Change."
What's interesting about this event is its flexibility: You can participate in one, several, or all sessions in any combination. Pay only for what you attend.
Learn more here.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
My China syndrome
The Sing Tao Daily, a Chinese language newspaper recently wrote a story on me, which you can read here -- if you can read Chinese.
I can't, but luckily the story also includes some English words such as "hard core conservative ideologue."
That's how I know it's about me.
I can't, but luckily the story also includes some English words such as "hard core conservative ideologue."
That's how I know it's about me.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Politics and loyalty
National Post columnist George Jonas mentions my book, Loyal to the Core, in this column on the politics of betrayal.
Talking like a conservative
In response to this Jeffrey Simpson column in yesterday's Globe and Mail, I wrote the following letter to the editor, which was published today:
The Stephen Harper I knew and worked with during his time as president of the National Citizens' Coalition was a vehement proponent of lower taxes, smaller government and individual freedom.
Now that he is starting to talk like a true conservative again, I hope he starts to govern like one, too.
Gerry Nicholls, former vice-president, National Citizens’ Coalition
The Stephen Harper I knew and worked with during his time as president of the National Citizens' Coalition was a vehement proponent of lower taxes, smaller government and individual freedom.
Now that he is starting to talk like a true conservative again, I hope he starts to govern like one, too.
Gerry Nicholls, former vice-president, National Citizens’ Coalition
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Media Alert
I will be a guest on the Michael Coren Show, tonight at 8:00 PM EST, as part of a panel discussing federal political issues.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Ignatieff's Words
Retro-Harper
"You know, there's two schools in economics on this, one is that there are some good taxes and the other is that no taxes are good taxes. I'm in the latter category. I don't believe any taxes are good taxes." -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Now that's the Stephen Harper I once knew!
It's making me all nostalgic.
Now that's the Stephen Harper I once knew!
It's making me all nostalgic.
Order of What?
The following people have been awarded the Order of Merit:
Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Jean Chretien.
It reminds me of that old Sesame Street game: Which one of these things just doesn't belong.
Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela and Jean Chretien.
It reminds me of that old Sesame Street game: Which one of these things just doesn't belong.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Harper channels Layton
Here's Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a G 8 news conference denouncing "unregulated capitalism."
Unregulated capitalism?
What country in the world has unregulated capitalism? Let me know and I'll move there.
Oh and besides demonizing capitalism, Harper also endorses the idea of "global governance."
So I guess he wants bureaucrats in Europe setting Canada's fiscal policies.
Isn't that just the kind of lefty internationalist stance you would expect from "cosmopolitan", "just visiting", non-true Canadian Michael Ignatieff?
I bet the guy who advised Harper to give that answer is the same guy who advised him on Catholic protocol.
H/T Kalim
Saturday, July 11, 2009
How to deal with the media
Every time the Canadian media catches the Conservative Party in some embarrassing situation, Tory loyalists immediately lament the biased nature of political journalism
It’s a familiar chorus: “The media hates us”; “They want to make us look bad”; “Why can’t reporters focus on important issues such as does Michael Ignatieff know all the words to O Canada.”
But what’s the point of complaining? The media is what it is. Reporters will always want to take shots at politicians (especially conservative politicians).
So deal with it.
And one strategy for dealing with a hostile media is really, really simple-- Stop giving reporters free ammunition.
In other words, the Conservatives should stop making it so easy for the media to cast the party in a bad light.
That means when the Prime Minister is taking part in an unfamiliar religious ritual, brief him beforehand on the proper protocol; that means when dealing with a controversial issue such as funding the Gay Pride Parade, have a consistent clear message; that means when you are to appear at a G-8 photo op, show up on time; that means doing simple things like checking your facts before attacking a political opponent.
It's called “professionalism.”
It’s a familiar chorus: “The media hates us”; “They want to make us look bad”; “Why can’t reporters focus on important issues such as does Michael Ignatieff know all the words to O Canada.”
But what’s the point of complaining? The media is what it is. Reporters will always want to take shots at politicians (especially conservative politicians).
So deal with it.
And one strategy for dealing with a hostile media is really, really simple-- Stop giving reporters free ammunition.
In other words, the Conservatives should stop making it so easy for the media to cast the party in a bad light.
That means when the Prime Minister is taking part in an unfamiliar religious ritual, brief him beforehand on the proper protocol; that means when dealing with a controversial issue such as funding the Gay Pride Parade, have a consistent clear message; that means when you are to appear at a G-8 photo op, show up on time; that means doing simple things like checking your facts before attacking a political opponent.
It's called “professionalism.”
Friday, July 10, 2009
Communication follies
Besides lacking a consistent ideological vision, the biggest problem with the Harper government is the general amateurishness of its communication efforts.
I have written about the PMO's communication mistakes in the past.
But this one is unbelievable.
I have written about the PMO's communication mistakes in the past.
But this one is unbelievable.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Ablonczy sacrificed on altar of political expediency
Yesterday I mused about the puzzling nature of the scandal involving Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy and the funding for the Gay Pride Parade.
Well, after reading stuff like Monte Solberg’s blog and this report, the picture as to what really happened has become clearer – and it is not pretty.
It seems that for some inexplicable reason, the PMO was caught off guard when the Conservative Party’s social conservative base reacted angrily to news that the Pride Parade was receiving $400,000 in funding.
Such a reaction should have been expected.
At any rate, when faced with this negative reaction the Prime Minister should have taken one of two courses.
He should have either a) publicly defended doling out the money and explained to so-cons why he did so, or b) publicly apologized for making a mistake and promising so-cons it would not happen again.
But, of course, he did neither.
Instead, the PMO, in a back door sneaky kind of way, implied the grant was all Ablonczy’s fault. (This by the way seems incredible given the iron-fisted control the PMO exercies over messaging.)
This may have saved the Prime Minister's skin, but in the process Ablonczy, one of Parliament’s hardest working, most loyal MPs and one of the original Reformers to boot, was callously thrown to the wolves.
That just stinks.
Well, after reading stuff like Monte Solberg’s blog and this report, the picture as to what really happened has become clearer – and it is not pretty.
It seems that for some inexplicable reason, the PMO was caught off guard when the Conservative Party’s social conservative base reacted angrily to news that the Pride Parade was receiving $400,000 in funding.
Such a reaction should have been expected.
At any rate, when faced with this negative reaction the Prime Minister should have taken one of two courses.
He should have either a) publicly defended doling out the money and explained to so-cons why he did so, or b) publicly apologized for making a mistake and promising so-cons it would not happen again.
But, of course, he did neither.
Instead, the PMO, in a back door sneaky kind of way, implied the grant was all Ablonczy’s fault. (This by the way seems incredible given the iron-fisted control the PMO exercies over messaging.)
This may have saved the Prime Minister's skin, but in the process Ablonczy, one of Parliament’s hardest working, most loyal MPs and one of the original Reformers to boot, was callously thrown to the wolves.
That just stinks.
Catholic Controversy
If nothing else the mini-scandal on whether or not Prime Minister Harper consumed the Eucharist is giving the Catholic Church and its rituals lots of publicity.
Anyway, my friend Paul Tuns, who is a far better Catholic than I will ever be, weighs in on this issue.
Writes Tuns: "The real scandal ... is the Catholic Church's. My problem is not so much what Harper did or may have done once he was given the Eucharist but rather that he was given the Eucharist. While I am not happy that the Prime Minister or his staff was unaware of the rules of the Catholic Church, I am critical of the fact the bishop provided him the Host in the first place."
Read the rest here.
Anyway, my friend Paul Tuns, who is a far better Catholic than I will ever be, weighs in on this issue.
Writes Tuns: "The real scandal ... is the Catholic Church's. My problem is not so much what Harper did or may have done once he was given the Eucharist but rather that he was given the Eucharist. While I am not happy that the Prime Minister or his staff was unaware of the rules of the Catholic Church, I am critical of the fact the bishop provided him the Host in the first place."
Read the rest here.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
An even curiouser little scandal
Lots of people are making a big deal out of the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn't consume a host while attending a Catholic mass. (The PMO insists he did eat the host.)
As a Roman Catholic (at least nominally) I take absolutely no offence at Harper's action. I mean, who cares?
This isn't the Middle Ages, the Pope isn't going to excommunicate anybody over this.
But still, what nags at me is this: Why the heck didn't the Prime Minister eat the bloody host!? Yes, I know, he's not a Catholic, but as far as I know the host is not poisonous to non-Catholics.
Did he want to save it for later, so he could add a touch of mustard to it?
Curious.
As a Roman Catholic (at least nominally) I take absolutely no offence at Harper's action. I mean, who cares?
This isn't the Middle Ages, the Pope isn't going to excommunicate anybody over this.
But still, what nags at me is this: Why the heck didn't the Prime Minister eat the bloody host!? Yes, I know, he's not a Catholic, but as far as I know the host is not poisonous to non-Catholics.
Did he want to save it for later, so he could add a touch of mustard to it?
Curious.
Curious little scandal
This whole business of the PMO supposedly punishing Diane Ablonczy for dishing out a $400,000 grant to help fund Toronto’s Gay Pride parade is really puzzling.
Conservative MP Brad Trost recently implied that Ablonczy offered the grant without clearing it with higher ups in the party.
That doesn’t ring true.
Given that Ablonczy is one of party’s smartest and most capable MPs, it just doesn’t seem likely she would “go rogue.”
Nor does it seem logical that Ablonczy, as Trost suggests, is being “punished” to appease angry social conservatives.
If that was the case why keep it secret?
I mean if your going to make an example out of somebody don’t you have make sure everybody knows what you are doing and why you are doing it?
Plus why was it so hard for the media to get a straight answer from the party as to whether or not Alboncy had lost responsibility for overseeing a government file?
Like I said, it’s puzzling.
The only thing for certain is that this whole thing is a PR disaster for the Tories.
Seems to me, they offered this grant as a way of pandering to gay voters, a move which they should have realized would have set off their so-con base.
But now they have not only alienated the so-cons, but whatever goodwill the grant generated with the gay community (which admittedly was probably not a lot) has vanished.
In fact, the media is spinning the story to make the Tories look more homophobic than ever – which will make it difficult for the party to make inroads in urban Ontario.
Better for the party (and for taxpayers) had they not given the grant in the first place.
Just as they should not have given a grant to an Ottawa Jazz festival, or to a Quebec balloon festival or to a potato research centre.
Conservative MP Brad Trost recently implied that Ablonczy offered the grant without clearing it with higher ups in the party.
That doesn’t ring true.
Given that Ablonczy is one of party’s smartest and most capable MPs, it just doesn’t seem likely she would “go rogue.”
Nor does it seem logical that Ablonczy, as Trost suggests, is being “punished” to appease angry social conservatives.
If that was the case why keep it secret?
I mean if your going to make an example out of somebody don’t you have make sure everybody knows what you are doing and why you are doing it?
Plus why was it so hard for the media to get a straight answer from the party as to whether or not Alboncy had lost responsibility for overseeing a government file?
Like I said, it’s puzzling.
The only thing for certain is that this whole thing is a PR disaster for the Tories.
Seems to me, they offered this grant as a way of pandering to gay voters, a move which they should have realized would have set off their so-con base.
But now they have not only alienated the so-cons, but whatever goodwill the grant generated with the gay community (which admittedly was probably not a lot) has vanished.
In fact, the media is spinning the story to make the Tories look more homophobic than ever – which will make it difficult for the party to make inroads in urban Ontario.
Better for the party (and for taxpayers) had they not given the grant in the first place.
Just as they should not have given a grant to an Ottawa Jazz festival, or to a Quebec balloon festival or to a potato research centre.
Free market propaganda machine
My column in yesterday's Toronto Sun condemning big government led a certain Rich Murri to write the following letter to the editor:
Re "Bailout bozos" (Gerry Nicholls, July 7): Isn't the writer a close adviser to Stephen Harper? Is he not from the far right wing of the National Citizen's Coalition, a right-wing, anti-union, anti-regulation, free-market propaganda machine? Shouldn't these so-called columns be called by their real name: right-wing political advertising?
It's been a long time since a left-winger attacked me like that -- feels good.
Re "Bailout bozos" (Gerry Nicholls, July 7): Isn't the writer a close adviser to Stephen Harper? Is he not from the far right wing of the National Citizen's Coalition, a right-wing, anti-union, anti-regulation, free-market propaganda machine? Shouldn't these so-called columns be called by their real name: right-wing political advertising?
It's been a long time since a left-winger attacked me like that -- feels good.
Beware the intellectuals
After reading National Post columnist Robert Fulford's obituary on "wiz kid" Robert McNamara, I starting thinking about intellectuals and politics.
This pondering led to the following letter to the editor which appears in today's Post:
Re: The Smartest Guy In The Room, Robert Fulford, July 7.
This column is a timely reminder that a university diploma isn't everything.
As Robert Fulford notes, Robert McNamara may have been a highly educated intellect, but his policies gave us the disaster that was the Vietnam War.
The lesson: Sometimes great intellectuals just don't make great leaders.
That's something Canadians might want to remember when judging the merits of a certain ex-Harvard professor now leading the federal Liberals.
This pondering led to the following letter to the editor which appears in today's Post:
Re: The Smartest Guy In The Room, Robert Fulford, July 7.
This column is a timely reminder that a university diploma isn't everything.
As Robert Fulford notes, Robert McNamara may have been a highly educated intellect, but his policies gave us the disaster that was the Vietnam War.
The lesson: Sometimes great intellectuals just don't make great leaders.
That's something Canadians might want to remember when judging the merits of a certain ex-Harvard professor now leading the federal Liberals.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Liberty Summer Fun
Just a reminder -- time is running out to register for the Liberty Summer Seminar.
Trust me, for freedom lovers this is the must-attend event of the summer.
Just check out this aerial view of where the Seminar takes place.
Trust me, for freedom lovers this is the must-attend event of the summer.
Just check out this aerial view of where the Seminar takes place.
Big government not the answer
Check out my latest column which appears in today's Sun media chain.
It examines the government-spending mania that's taking place on both sides of the border.
It examines the government-spending mania that's taking place on both sides of the border.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Setting Kinsella straight
In a recent Ottawa Hill Times column Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella implied Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a "lobbyist" during his time at the National Citizens Coalition.
I wrote this letter to the editor to set the record straight, which appears in this week's edition.
I wrote this letter to the editor to set the record straight, which appears in this week's edition.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Star gets it wrong
A couple of days ago, James Travers of the Toronto Star wrote a column suggesting the Ontario Progressive Conservatives had erred in selecting a conservative like Tim Hudak to lead them.
The Tories were looking backward said Travers.
I wrote a letter to the editor to set the record straight. It was published today:
"Star columnist Jim Travers has got it all wrong.
Leftists, not conservatives, are the ones nostalgic for the past.
It's leftists who are eagerly embracing and promoting the failed socialist policies of the 1960s and '70s – bigger government, massive deficits and industrial planning.
Clearly, they have forgotten how such policies led to only thing: economic stagnation.
That's why we need conservative leaders who will stick by their principles.
Somebody has to be there to pick up the pieces."
The Tories were looking backward said Travers.
I wrote a letter to the editor to set the record straight. It was published today:
"Star columnist Jim Travers has got it all wrong.
Leftists, not conservatives, are the ones nostalgic for the past.
It's leftists who are eagerly embracing and promoting the failed socialist policies of the 1960s and '70s – bigger government, massive deficits and industrial planning.
Clearly, they have forgotten how such policies led to only thing: economic stagnation.
That's why we need conservative leaders who will stick by their principles.
Somebody has to be there to pick up the pieces."
Friday, July 03, 2009
Gag law hypocrisy
There are two things I really despise: election gag laws and hypocrisy.
It would be the fair thing to do.
And the two usually go together.
For those not familiar with the term "gag law", that's what I call federal election legislation which imposes severe restrictions how much money citizens or groups can spend on "political advertising" during elections.
During my time at the National Citizens Coalition, I battled these laws in both the court of law and in the court of public opinion.
I believed then, and still believe now, that gag laws infringe on every Canadian's right to free expression.
Yet one of the pro-gag law arguments I kept coming up against was the following: "It's only fair to deny Canadian citizens the right to free political speech. After all, political parties face expenditure limits. Gag laws level the playing field."
In other words, gag law defenders -- usually politicians -- see spending money as an evil influence on our democratic process. That's why both citizens and politicians need limits as to how much they can spend to express opinions.
And this is where the hypocrisy comes in. 
The fact is politicians routinely spend money without any limit to buy votes. What's worse is they don't even spend their own money. They spend our money.
Case in point, is the flagrant way in which the Conservative Party is making political hay out of all that stimulus spending from their recent budget.
As a story in the Toronto Star notes, the Tories are handing out "huge blue cheques emblazoned with the maple leaf logo of the Canadian government, the signature of a benevolent MP and, in some cases, Conservative sloganeering."
If that's not buying votes, I don't know what is. And believe me, the amount of money the Tories will spend this summer on this stuff will dwarf anything citizens or groups would ever spend on election advertising.
So maybe our politicians should either repeal the gag law or refrain from using our taxes for their political propaganda ploys.
It would be the fair thing to do.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Friedman Defending Capitalism
This clip from the Phil Donahue may be ancient but it's still relevant.
H/T Rolph
H/T Rolph
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Founding debates
This being Canada Day and all I thought it would be appropriate to mention that I am currently reading Canada's Founding Debates, a book edited by my friend William Gairdner.
This book provides a fascinating glimpse at some of the debates over the pros and cons of Confederation which took place in the parliaments and assemblies of British North America from 1864 to 1873.
It's a wonderful intellectual history of the ideas which were to shape Canada in its early days.
What struck me immediately was how our elected representatives at that time employed sophisticated rhetoric and reasoning to support their cases. It's a sad contrast to the juvenile sound bites and taunts which pass for "debate" these days in our legislatures.
And leftists might be surprised to learn that nobody in the founding debates mentioned anything about socialized medicine, peace keeping or the CBC.
Rather the legislators talked about concepts such as "liberty". Liberty, now there's a word you don't hear much mentioned in the House of Commons anymore.
Here's what Richard Cartwright, a legislator from what was later called Ontario, declared in 1865:
"I think that every true reformer, every real friend of liberty, will agree with me in saying that if we must erect safeguards, they should be rather for the security of the individual than of the mass, and that our chiefest care must be to train the majority to respect the rights of the minority, to prevent claims of the few from being trampled under foot by the caprice or passion of the many. For myself, sir, I own frankly I prefer British liberty to American equality."
Bet this isn't reproduced in many Canadian history textbooks.
This book provides a fascinating glimpse at some of the debates over the pros and cons of Confederation which took place in the parliaments and assemblies of British North America from 1864 to 1873.
It's a wonderful intellectual history of the ideas which were to shape Canada in its early days.
What struck me immediately was how our elected representatives at that time employed sophisticated rhetoric and reasoning to support their cases. It's a sad contrast to the juvenile sound bites and taunts which pass for "debate" these days in our legislatures.
And leftists might be surprised to learn that nobody in the founding debates mentioned anything about socialized medicine, peace keeping or the CBC.
Rather the legislators talked about concepts such as "liberty". Liberty, now there's a word you don't hear much mentioned in the House of Commons anymore.
Here's what Richard Cartwright, a legislator from what was later called Ontario, declared in 1865:
"I think that every true reformer, every real friend of liberty, will agree with me in saying that if we must erect safeguards, they should be rather for the security of the individual than of the mass, and that our chiefest care must be to train the majority to respect the rights of the minority, to prevent claims of the few from being trampled under foot by the caprice or passion of the many. For myself, sir, I own frankly I prefer British liberty to American equality."
Bet this isn't reproduced in many Canadian history textbooks.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Capitalists must stop being defensive
Here's my latest column from Report Magazine; I make the case that the people who must start defending capitalism are capitalists.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Police should do their job
What is it about strikes which make the police suddenly forget to do their job?
For instance, it's the duty of a police officer to ensure citizens can travel freely without fear of harassment or intimidation.
Yet, for some reason the police typically do nothing to stop such harassment and intimidation from taking place on a picket line.
A case in point is the current city-worker strike in Toronto. Strikers are hindering citizens from entering public spaces and the police won't do a thing about it except watch.
Police Const. Tony Vella says the cops are there to "keep the peace. They have to stay neutral."
Neutral?
By doing nothing to stop union-bullying the police are far from neutral. They are actually aiding and abetting union bosses who wish to hold taxpayers hostage.
That's wrong.
For instance, it's the duty of a police officer to ensure citizens can travel freely without fear of harassment or intimidation.
Yet, for some reason the police typically do nothing to stop such harassment and intimidation from taking place on a picket line.
A case in point is the current city-worker strike in Toronto. Strikers are hindering citizens from entering public spaces and the police won't do a thing about it except watch.
Police Const. Tony Vella says the cops are there to "keep the peace. They have to stay neutral."
Neutral?
By doing nothing to stop union-bullying the police are far from neutral. They are actually aiding and abetting union bosses who wish to hold taxpayers hostage.
That's wrong.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Winning the war of ideas
Non-Michael Jackson related news: I have a column in today's National Post based on a speech I gave yesterday at a Fraser Institute event.
It's about why Canadian conservatives must focus on asking themselves one simple question: Is it right?
It's about why Canadian conservatives must focus on asking themselves one simple question: Is it right?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Less pride, more sense
Joseph Ben Ami has a good column explaining why the federal government's decision to dole out $400,000 to gay pride week doesn't make political sense.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The state of garbage
The city of Toronto today is swarming with a specially trained elite government force officially known as the Tactical Trash Team.
To terrified city residents they are simply known as the dreaded“Triple T’s”
Fanatically loyal to their master, Commissar David Miller, the Triple Ts ruthlessly enforce Toronto’s Garbage Edict – which states “during the city worker strike, citizens shall dispose of garbage only in legal drop off zones, except in those cases where legal drop off zones are blocked by placard-wielding and nasty union types, in which case citizens are expected to keep all garbage in their living rooms.”
To prevent misguided citizens from breaking this edict the Triple T’s use their finely honed “rummaging” skills to root through contraband garbage, seeking clues which will lead them to the perpetrators.
A discarded banana peel, a used up toothpaste tube, an old David Miller for Mayor button – all these can be used to track down anti-social elements.
So beware Torontonians – anything you throw away can and will be used against you in a court of law.
To terrified city residents they are simply known as the dreaded“Triple T’s”
Fanatically loyal to their master, Commissar David Miller, the Triple Ts ruthlessly enforce Toronto’s Garbage Edict – which states “during the city worker strike, citizens shall dispose of garbage only in legal drop off zones, except in those cases where legal drop off zones are blocked by placard-wielding and nasty union types, in which case citizens are expected to keep all garbage in their living rooms.”
To prevent misguided citizens from breaking this edict the Triple T’s use their finely honed “rummaging” skills to root through contraband garbage, seeking clues which will lead them to the perpetrators.
A discarded banana peel, a used up toothpaste tube, an old David Miller for Mayor button – all these can be used to track down anti-social elements.
So beware Torontonians – anything you throw away can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The politics of summer
Here's my latest Sun Media column -- I explain why our MPs should take a much longer summer holiday.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Et tu Gerry
That red dot is me in front of Stratford's Avon Theatre.
I love this play because it shows how a cunning politician -- in this case Mark Antony -- can whip up a crowd with the right emotional appeal.
Our leaders could learn a thing or two from guys like him.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Political tapes
I see Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff are having secret meetings to see if they can work out a deal to avoid an election.
Sure would be interesting to know what they are saying to each other.
Of course, if the two leaders are accompanied by aides with tape recorders we are bound to find out sooner or later.
Sure would be interesting to know what they are saying to each other.
Of course, if the two leaders are accompanied by aides with tape recorders we are bound to find out sooner or later.
Playing political cards
When it comes to reacting to all the political posturing that's going on in Ottawa, pollster Nick Nanos has the best line: He called it a "game of poker where everyone's bluffing, but nobody's holding anything."
Liberty in the Summer
What's the best thing about summer?
Baseball, of course.
But without a doubt, the second-best thing about summer is the Liberty Summer Seminar.
In case you've never heard of it, the Summer Seminar is a great event that combines the bucolic outdoors of rural Ontario with the stimulating conversation of freedom.
There's also music and barbecues and swimming. (If you don't mind swimming in a pond.)
And the organizers always manage to attract fascinating speakers with this year's seminar, scheduled to take place on the July 25th weekend, being no exception.
Among those scheduled to speak are Conservative MP Scott Reid, the Cato Institutes's Will Wilkinson and Kerry Howley of Reason Magazine.
So don't miss out; register soon as spaces are limited.
Baseball, of course.
But without a doubt, the second-best thing about summer is the Liberty Summer Seminar.
In case you've never heard of it, the Summer Seminar is a great event that combines the bucolic outdoors of rural Ontario with the stimulating conversation of freedom.
There's also music and barbecues and swimming. (If you don't mind swimming in a pond.)
And the organizers always manage to attract fascinating speakers with this year's seminar, scheduled to take place on the July 25th weekend, being no exception.
Among those scheduled to speak are Conservative MP Scott Reid, the Cato Institutes's Will Wilkinson and Kerry Howley of Reason Magazine.
So don't miss out; register soon as spaces are limited.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Why an election would be good
The only good thing about triggering an election this summer is that it would, as Kelly McParland put it, "put the stimulus program on hold indefinitely."
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Leadership woes
As we wait for Michael Ignatieff to determine if the government's latest economic statement is socialist enough for his liking, we should take the time to ponder the current political strategic climate.
For instance, it seems both the Liberals and the Conservatives have the same glaring weakness: leadership.
Take the Liberals first. There's no doubt Ignatieff is an upgrade over Stephane Dion, but that's not saying much. Ignatieff is intelligent, but in an academic way, a kind of intelligence that doesn't take you very far in the blood sport known as politics.
It's not the kind of intelligence, for instance, possessed by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Chretien was no Rhodes Scholar, but he had a street fighter's cunning, an ability to sense an opponent's weakness and to exploit it without mercy.
Ignatieff seems to lack that killer instinct.
What's more Ignatieff is still a political novice, a rookie who has yet to have his leadership abilities tested in a national election campaign. Indeed, recall he actually lost to Dion in the 2006 Liberal leadership race.
Bottom line is, I could see this guy committing some major gaffes in a campaign pressure cooker environment.
But what about the Tories?
Well their leader, Stephen Harper, is smart and battle-tested. And indeed the Tories have always made Harper the centerpiece of their campaign messaging.
Simply put the Tory strategy was to say, "Hey vote for us because our leader Stephen Harper is a nice guy, who likes to play the piano and drink Tim Horton's coffee." This was the point of those infamous sweater vest TV ads.
I always though that was a bad strategy and now I know it's a bad strategy. A recent Nanos survey says that among Canadians, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is "twice as likely to be identified as a weakness than as a strength."
That's devastating news for the Conservatives.
It means selling Harper to Canadians in the next election will be about as smart as selling Canadian flags to Bloc Quebecois supporters. The Conservatives will need a completely new strategy and they will need one quick.
But what can the Tories say? They can't brag about their fiscal management, not with a $50 billion deficit and thanks to Raitt-gate even their competence is coming into question.
Anyway, I suspect both sides will ultimately employ the strategy political parties always use when they have leadership problems which is to go negative.
Boiled down the Liberal and Tory message will be: Maybe you don't like our guy, but the other guy is even worse.
For instance, it seems both the Liberals and the Conservatives have the same glaring weakness: leadership.
Take the Liberals first. There's no doubt Ignatieff is an upgrade over Stephane Dion, but that's not saying much. Ignatieff is intelligent, but in an academic way, a kind of intelligence that doesn't take you very far in the blood sport known as politics.
It's not the kind of intelligence, for instance, possessed by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Chretien was no Rhodes Scholar, but he had a street fighter's cunning, an ability to sense an opponent's weakness and to exploit it without mercy.
Ignatieff seems to lack that killer instinct.
What's more Ignatieff is still a political novice, a rookie who has yet to have his leadership abilities tested in a national election campaign. Indeed, recall he actually lost to Dion in the 2006 Liberal leadership race.
Bottom line is, I could see this guy committing some major gaffes in a campaign pressure cooker environment.
But what about the Tories?
Well their leader, Stephen Harper, is smart and battle-tested. And indeed the Tories have always made Harper the centerpiece of their campaign messaging.
Simply put the Tory strategy was to say, "Hey vote for us because our leader Stephen Harper is a nice guy, who likes to play the piano and drink Tim Horton's coffee." This was the point of those infamous sweater vest TV ads.
I always though that was a bad strategy and now I know it's a bad strategy. A recent Nanos survey says that among Canadians, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is "twice as likely to be identified as a weakness than as a strength."
That's devastating news for the Conservatives.
It means selling Harper to Canadians in the next election will be about as smart as selling Canadian flags to Bloc Quebecois supporters. The Conservatives will need a completely new strategy and they will need one quick.
But what can the Tories say? They can't brag about their fiscal management, not with a $50 billion deficit and thanks to Raitt-gate even their competence is coming into question.
Anyway, I suspect both sides will ultimately employ the strategy political parties always use when they have leadership problems which is to go negative.
Boiled down the Liberal and Tory message will be: Maybe you don't like our guy, but the other guy is even worse.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Flanagan: Harper needs to rebuild reputation
Professor Tom Flanagan and I have had our disagreements in the past.
The former campaign manager for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Flanagan believed the Conservative Party needed to push "incremental" conservatism, whereas I took the position that the party should stress more of an aggressive conservative vision.
Anyway, it seems Flanagan and I are starting to sing from the same hymn book.
In an update of his book Harper's Team, he argues the Prime Minister needs to rebuild his reputation.
Flanagan writes there is now a widespread impression "that [Harper] stands for nothing in particular, except winning and keeping power” in Ottawa.
“This is a major loss for a political leader ... once seen as a man of conviction," writes Flanagan. "How long will voters continue to support someone who is thought to be mainly a cunning tactician, especially if a run of mistakes makes him seem not even particularly cunning?”
That's an excellent point.
Of course, it's a point I made more than two years ago.
The former campaign manager for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Flanagan believed the Conservative Party needed to push "incremental" conservatism, whereas I took the position that the party should stress more of an aggressive conservative vision.
Anyway, it seems Flanagan and I are starting to sing from the same hymn book.
In an update of his book Harper's Team, he argues the Prime Minister needs to rebuild his reputation.
Flanagan writes there is now a widespread impression "that [Harper] stands for nothing in particular, except winning and keeping power” in Ottawa.
“This is a major loss for a political leader ... once seen as a man of conviction," writes Flanagan. "How long will voters continue to support someone who is thought to be mainly a cunning tactician, especially if a run of mistakes makes him seem not even particularly cunning?”
That's an excellent point.
Of course, it's a point I made more than two years ago.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Harper loves Obama
It's bad enough that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is racking up massive deficits in this country, but now he's also acting as an apologist for American president Barack Obama's stimulus insanity.
Speaking on Fox News, Harper declared:
"We need stimulus spending now, and I say that as a conservative ...When the house is on fire . . . you have to bring the hoses and spray water all over it, you can't worry about the basement ... The reality is, the fiscal situation in the United States is very worrisome, but that said, President Obama came into office with a deep structural deficit position, at a time when fiscal stimulus is actually required economically."
If that's speaking as a conservative I wouldn't want to hear him speak as a liberal.
Speaking on Fox News, Harper declared:
"We need stimulus spending now, and I say that as a conservative ...When the house is on fire . . . you have to bring the hoses and spray water all over it, you can't worry about the basement ... The reality is, the fiscal situation in the United States is very worrisome, but that said, President Obama came into office with a deep structural deficit position, at a time when fiscal stimulus is actually required economically."
If that's speaking as a conservative I wouldn't want to hear him speak as a liberal.
Speaking for Fraser
The good people at the Fraser Institute have asked me to give a policy briefing on June 25 in their Toronto office.
And, of course, my idea of "policy briefing" is talking about my book Loyal to the Core.
So if you are in town be sure and drop by to say hello and maybe buy a book ... or two.
And, of course, my idea of "policy briefing" is talking about my book Loyal to the Core.
So if you are in town be sure and drop by to say hello and maybe buy a book ... or two.
Socialism map
As my friend Janet Neilson recently noted on Twitter this map is a great way to track Canadian socialism.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Obama's debt
Here's a good column from the Investor's Business Daily on the dangers that could result from U.S. president Barack Obama's big-spending economic schemes.
Here's a sampling:
"It is irresponsible stewardship for Obama and Congress to go on a borrowing spree that puts America in the same unsustainable position as an overstretched boomer with too much debt and too little income and whose only option is to refinance at higher costs just to pay the interest."
Here's a sampling:
"It is irresponsible stewardship for Obama and Congress to go on a borrowing spree that puts America in the same unsustainable position as an overstretched boomer with too much debt and too little income and whose only option is to refinance at higher costs just to pay the interest."
Voter discretion is advised
Transport Minister John Baird is in hot water for suggesting Toronto city officials could "f_ _ k off".
I don't know.
Seems to me Baird is just saying what a lot of taxpayers are thinking.
I don't know.
Seems to me Baird is just saying what a lot of taxpayers are thinking.
Not much of a scandal
When rumours were running wild yesterday about the explosive Lisa Raitt audio tape, I was expecting a whale of a scandal.
Instead, it turned out to be a minnow.
OK, so she made some mildly disparaging comment about a fellow cabinet minister. Big deal. That's hardly a shocker.
But wait a minute, you might be asking, didn't she call the medical isotopes crisis "sexy"? Isn't that a horrendous scandal?
No, that's just the way people talk while engaging in a private conservation. I am sure if we could eavesdrop on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's private discussions with his advisers we would hear him utter comments from time to time that might be considered unHarvard-like.
And finally, there's the charge that Raitt just viewed the crisis as an opportunity to advance her career.
Well if cynical political ambition is a resigning offence, then the House of Commons would be an empty building.
Of course, none of this will stop the Liberals from trying to build this up into a scandal. As they might admit in private, this is an opportunity that's too sexy to pass up.
Instead, it turned out to be a minnow.
OK, so she made some mildly disparaging comment about a fellow cabinet minister. Big deal. That's hardly a shocker.
But wait a minute, you might be asking, didn't she call the medical isotopes crisis "sexy"? Isn't that a horrendous scandal?
No, that's just the way people talk while engaging in a private conservation. I am sure if we could eavesdrop on Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's private discussions with his advisers we would hear him utter comments from time to time that might be considered unHarvard-like.
And finally, there's the charge that Raitt just viewed the crisis as an opportunity to advance her career.
Well if cynical political ambition is a resigning offence, then the House of Commons would be an empty building.
Of course, none of this will stop the Liberals from trying to build this up into a scandal. As they might admit in private, this is an opportunity that's too sexy to pass up.
Monday, June 08, 2009
What's on those tapes
Everyone is getting all excited about what's on that mysterious audiotape.
You know the tape I mean, the one which allegedly recorded Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt making some sort of embarrassing comments.
Well, I am pretty sure what's on that tape.
In fact, I bet the transcript will look something like this:
Raitt: Will you please hand me the top secret binder, you know the one which I'm not supposed to lose.
Aide: Binder? I don't have that binder? I thought you had it.
Raitt: Well, I don't have it either. Oh well no matter. I'm sure it will turn up when we aren't looking for it.
Aide: Yeah. Ha, ha.
You know the tape I mean, the one which allegedly recorded Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt making some sort of embarrassing comments.
Well, I am pretty sure what's on that tape.
In fact, I bet the transcript will look something like this:
Raitt: Will you please hand me the top secret binder, you know the one which I'm not supposed to lose.
Aide: Binder? I don't have that binder? I thought you had it.
Raitt: Well, I don't have it either. Oh well no matter. I'm sure it will turn up when we aren't looking for it.
Aide: Yeah. Ha, ha.
More about those Tory ads ...
Nanos research did a survey to judge the effectiveness of the Conservative Party's recent slew of attack TV ads and finds in the short term, at least, they have had little impact.
In fact, a majority of Canadians consider the ads ineffective
Interestingly, however, Nanos did find the ads had a "marginally negative impact on the impression of Michael Ignatieff primarily among committed Conservative and NDP voters."
Committed Conservatives, of course, would naturally find the ads persuasive. But what about the NDP? Why did the ads make an impression on socialists?
Well, it's like I noted a few days ago; these ads are primarily appealing to a populist anti-American sentiment, an emotion that runs deep in Canada's left wing.
Is this what the Tories had planned?
Maybe. After all, by playing the anti-American-card in this way, it's possible the Tories could indeed drive leftists out of the Liberal camp and into Jack Layton's arms -- which would be good for the Conservatives.
However, the danger is that such a strategy could also cause many small "c" conservatives -- traditionally more pro-American -- to abandon the Conservative Party.
Indeed, Nanos reports that "50.6% of committed Conservatives believe the ads reflect either somewhat negatively or negatively on the Conservatives."
Turning off your base is never good policy.
In fact, a majority of Canadians consider the ads ineffective
Interestingly, however, Nanos did find the ads had a "marginally negative impact on the impression of Michael Ignatieff primarily among committed Conservative and NDP voters."
Committed Conservatives, of course, would naturally find the ads persuasive. But what about the NDP? Why did the ads make an impression on socialists?
Well, it's like I noted a few days ago; these ads are primarily appealing to a populist anti-American sentiment, an emotion that runs deep in Canada's left wing.
Is this what the Tories had planned?
Maybe. After all, by playing the anti-American-card in this way, it's possible the Tories could indeed drive leftists out of the Liberal camp and into Jack Layton's arms -- which would be good for the Conservatives.
However, the danger is that such a strategy could also cause many small "c" conservatives -- traditionally more pro-American -- to abandon the Conservative Party.
Indeed, Nanos reports that "50.6% of committed Conservatives believe the ads reflect either somewhat negatively or negatively on the Conservatives."
Turning off your base is never good policy.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Why I won't gloat
Recall that when the Tory attacks ad first came out, I gave them a negative review; "Instead of focusing on simplistic, nationalistic nonsense," I wrote, "the Tories should explain why a Liberal government will be bad government."
A few weeks after I wrote that the Tories experienced a minor upward blip in the polls, leading many Conservative Partisans to crow that the "truth ads" were working and that I was therefore all wet.
Well a couple of recent polls show the Tories are now losing ground. Does this mean the attack ads are a flop? Does this mean I am justified in saying "Hey, I told you so!"?
As tempting as it would be to do that, I will refrain from any gloating. After all, it takes time for these sort of ads to sink in, meaning it's still too early to pass judgement.
A few weeks after I wrote that the Tories experienced a minor upward blip in the polls, leading many Conservative Partisans to crow that the "truth ads" were working and that I was therefore all wet.
Well a couple of recent polls show the Tories are now losing ground. Does this mean the attack ads are a flop? Does this mean I am justified in saying "Hey, I told you so!"?
As tempting as it would be to do that, I will refrain from any gloating. After all, it takes time for these sort of ads to sink in, meaning it's still too early to pass judgement.The fact is a good attack ad's purpose isn't necessarily short term gain. Their aim is often to sow seeds of doubt in the voters' mind; make them wary of a candidate's weaknesses.
For instance, the Tories used attack ads to suggest former Liberal leader Stephane Dion was weak and indecisive; hence whenever he displayed weakness or indecisiveness it reinforced the Tory message.
Over time voters came to buy it.
That's what a good attack will do. But I still don't think the Tory anti-Ignatieff ads are good. They are zeroing in on the wrong message , a populist, anti-American slant that just won't stick.
Oh they might work if Ignatieff is a complete idiot and he somehow manages to reinforce the Tory message, IE he starts going around whistling the Star Bangled Banner and eating caviar.
But it's likely he won't do that.
It's more likely he will spend the summer going to barbecues where he will wax eloquently about how much he loves Canada. Then Canadians won't see him as "cosmopolitan".
By the times the leaves fall in the Autumn the Tory ads will be long forgotten.
That's why the Conservative brain-trust better come up with a plan B.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Farewell to Tiger Stadium
Here's a picture that makes me heartsick.It's all that remains of that once glorious baseball temple better known as Tiger Stadium.
The stadium was undergoing a slow demolition for months, but some groups were fighting hard to save this remaining wedge from the wrecking ball so that it could be turned into a baseball museum.
Unfortunately, however, the heartless bastards at the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation recently voted to tear it down too.
It's just as well, I guess; the Old Girl should probably be put out of her misery.
H/T Paul Tuns
Update: A judge has issued a restraining order on the Tiger Stadium demolition.
Guilt vs Responsibility
This business of Prime Minister Stephen Harper not accepting the resignation of Natural Resource Minister Lisa Raitt for losing "secret" documents brings two things to mind.
First, what is it with Cabinet Ministers and secret documents?! First it's Maxime Bernier forgetting documents and now Raitt (or her unlucky aide.)
Other countries don't need to send spies here, all they need do is invite a Cabinet Minister over for dinner and wait and see which state secrets are left behind.
The other thing about this mini-scandal, is that it suggests to me Harper is softening his management style.
I say that because it just isn't like the Harper I know to let Raitt off the hook the way he did.
Back in his days at the National Citizens Coalition, when I worked with him, he never tolerated it when an NCC staffer tried to excuse failure by blaming it on some factor outside his or her control.
I remember one time in particular Harper was letting into an NCC staffer who screwed up on something (It wasn't me, thank God) and the poor guy tried to defend himself by saying "You can't blame me for this; it wasn't my fault.
To which Stephen replied, "I didn't say it was your fault; I said it was your responsibility."
First, what is it with Cabinet Ministers and secret documents?! First it's Maxime Bernier forgetting documents and now Raitt (or her unlucky aide.)
Other countries don't need to send spies here, all they need do is invite a Cabinet Minister over for dinner and wait and see which state secrets are left behind.
The other thing about this mini-scandal, is that it suggests to me Harper is softening his management style.
I say that because it just isn't like the Harper I know to let Raitt off the hook the way he did.
Back in his days at the National Citizens Coalition, when I worked with him, he never tolerated it when an NCC staffer tried to excuse failure by blaming it on some factor outside his or her control.
I remember one time in particular Harper was letting into an NCC staffer who screwed up on something (It wasn't me, thank God) and the poor guy tried to defend himself by saying "You can't blame me for this; it wasn't my fault.
To which Stephen replied, "I didn't say it was your fault; I said it was your responsibility."
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
SQE has new blog
The people over at the Society for Quality Education have an important mandate: make our education system better.
To do this they offer parents and teachers excellent learning tools; they also promote the idea of giving parents more choice when it comes to education.
The reason I am mentioning all this, is that the SQE has a brand spanking new blog.
Check it out.
To do this they offer parents and teachers excellent learning tools; they also promote the idea of giving parents more choice when it comes to education.
The reason I am mentioning all this, is that the SQE has a brand spanking new blog.
Check it out.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Yankee go home
Every time one of those anti-Ignatieff Tory attack ads pops up on TV (which it seems is every five seconds) I cringe.
It’s not just the embarrassingly juvenile look of the ads which bothers me, it’s more what they say about the sad intellectual state of today’s Conservative Party.
Bereft of ideas and vision and principle, the Conservatives, desperate to hang onto power, have chosen to play the most obnoxious card in Canadian politics: anti-Americanism.
“Be warned Canada” the Tory ads imply, “Michael Ignatieff once worked and lived in the evil United States. He’s not really one of us. We even have him on tape saying `It’s your country [the US] just as much as it is mine’.”
Oh the horror!
And Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning that he has other damaging tapes of Ignatieff.
Perhaps he has a clip of the Liberal leader eating apple pie on the fourth of July.
Appealing to anti-American sentiment, of course, is nothing new. But in the last few decades pandering to ugly the side of Canadian nationalism in this way was usually the preserve of the NDP and Liberals.
Now bashing Americans is non-partisan.
Oh and just in case the anti-Americanism of the Tory TV ads is too subtle somebody dispatched this clown to pound the message home. 
But I guess we better get used to this style of politics. With its massive deficits and corporate bailouts, the Conservatives can no longer represent themselves as a pro-free market party.
Maybe they should call themselves the Petty Populist Party.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Attack ad on Reagan flopped
All this talk about the anti-Ignatieff ads, has me thinking about attack ads of the past.
Here's one that went after Ronald Reagan way back in 1980.
It didn't work.
Here's one that went after Ronald Reagan way back in 1980.
It didn't work.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Politics of attack ads
I was kind of surprised when Prime Minister Stephen Harper got up in the House of Commons recently and taunted the Liberals about having "tapes" to use against Michael Ignatieff.
The implication, of course, was that he had lots of clips of Ignatieff saying politically embarrassing things which would form the basis of election attack ads.
What surprises me is not that the Tories have such tapes. That's normal. All political parties scour the media seeking ammo to use against their opponents. Journalists do it too. When I worked at the National Citizens Coalition reporters would call me up to see if I had any video of Harper giving speeches. (We didn't.)
What does surprise me, however, is that Harper would associate himself in anyway with attack ads. It was an unusual move.
After all, since these sort of "negative" ads have a stigma most political leaders don't want to be linked to them. That's why they let the "war room" and the spin doctors handle all that stuff.
Or better yet, they seek Third Party allies to run attack ads on their behalf. The famous "Swift Boat" ads attacking Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004, for instance, were not party ads.
The Republicans enjoyed the benefit of these effective ads without suffering any backlash.
Harper, on the other hand, has now linked himself publically to his party's attack ads -- which ironically might provide a tape for Liberal attack ads.
The implication, of course, was that he had lots of clips of Ignatieff saying politically embarrassing things which would form the basis of election attack ads.
What surprises me is not that the Tories have such tapes. That's normal. All political parties scour the media seeking ammo to use against their opponents. Journalists do it too. When I worked at the National Citizens Coalition reporters would call me up to see if I had any video of Harper giving speeches. (We didn't.)
What does surprise me, however, is that Harper would associate himself in anyway with attack ads. It was an unusual move.
After all, since these sort of "negative" ads have a stigma most political leaders don't want to be linked to them. That's why they let the "war room" and the spin doctors handle all that stuff.
Or better yet, they seek Third Party allies to run attack ads on their behalf. The famous "Swift Boat" ads attacking Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004, for instance, were not party ads.
The Republicans enjoyed the benefit of these effective ads without suffering any backlash.
Harper, on the other hand, has now linked himself publically to his party's attack ads -- which ironically might provide a tape for Liberal attack ads.
Election Prediction
Check out my latest posting over at the Women's Post.
I make a fearless prediction -- the next election will be nasty.
I make a fearless prediction -- the next election will be nasty.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Owning GM
According to this Globe and Mail headline "Canadian taxpayers" will soon own shares in General Motors.
I wonder if I can sell mine?
I wonder if I can sell mine?
Canadian leadership
What a fine state Parliament is in these days.
We have a Leader of the Opposition who is "just visiting" and a Prime Minister who is "just spending."
We have a Leader of the Opposition who is "just visiting" and a Prime Minister who is "just spending."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Liberals want more gag laws
Well the federal Liberals are once again declaring war on free election speech.
Recall in 2000 it was Prime Minister Jean Chretien who imposed the infamous election gag law on Canadians -- the law which makes it a crime for citizens to spend their own money to express their own views during federal election.
That was bad enough.
Now Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff wants to extend that gag law so that it also covers the period three months prior to the election.
This is sad but not surprising.
Once you buy into the logic that it's OK to squelch free expression you start heading down a slippery slope; you can always justify further restrictions.
First the gag law was only supposed to be in force during elections; now the Liberals also want to gag Canadians before elections.
Before you know it, it will be illegal for citizens to run political ads at any time.
Recall in 2000 it was Prime Minister Jean Chretien who imposed the infamous election gag law on Canadians -- the law which makes it a crime for citizens to spend their own money to express their own views during federal election.
That was bad enough.
Now Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff wants to extend that gag law so that it also covers the period three months prior to the election.
This is sad but not surprising.
Once you buy into the logic that it's OK to squelch free expression you start heading down a slippery slope; you can always justify further restrictions.
First the gag law was only supposed to be in force during elections; now the Liberals also want to gag Canadians before elections.
Before you know it, it will be illegal for citizens to run political ads at any time.
Checking the President
It looks like Americans might want to slow down the Obama Express a bit.
A recent poll from McLaughlin and Associates indicates a majority of Americans say they would vote for a Republican for Congress to be a check and balance on President Obama.
A recent poll from McLaughlin and Associates indicates a majority of Americans say they would vote for a Republican for Congress to be a check and balance on President Obama.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
I didn't say it
“Mr. Harper may have left his balls out West when it comes to taking a principled stand against bailing out this industry like he used believe in.”
That's Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation expressing his disappointment over Prime Minister Harper's decision to use taxpayer cash to top up GM pensions.
That's Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation expressing his disappointment over Prime Minister Harper's decision to use taxpayer cash to top up GM pensions.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Obama Man Can
My friend Rondi Adamson posted this on Facebook and I just had to share.
If only the Tories could be this clever when going after Michael Ignatieff.
If only the Tories could be this clever when going after Michael Ignatieff.
The Politics of Star Trek
Check out my latest posting at the Women's Post.
I explain how the new Star Trek movie could impact on Canadian politics.
I explain how the new Star Trek movie could impact on Canadian politics.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
American attitudes on terrorism
Given the recent news about terror arrests in New York and Iran’s missile launch, McLaughlin and Associates have released an interesting poll on American attitudes towards terrorism.
According to its results Americans are still plenty worried.
Here are some highlights:
* Nine in ten voters (91%) say that Iran supplying a nuclear umbrella for terrorists is a serious threat to the United States.
* Seven in ten voters (71%) say the United States will not be safe with a nuclear Iran
* Eight in ten voters (80%) say it is likely that Iran will launch a missile attack on Israel
* Three in four voters (77%) say it is likely that Iran will use the threat of nuclear attack to provide a shield for Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists to attack Israel
* The majority of voters approves of taking several specific actions to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran
Read the whole thing here.
According to its results Americans are still plenty worried.
Here are some highlights:
* Nine in ten voters (91%) say that Iran supplying a nuclear umbrella for terrorists is a serious threat to the United States.
* Seven in ten voters (71%) say the United States will not be safe with a nuclear Iran
* Eight in ten voters (80%) say it is likely that Iran will launch a missile attack on Israel
* Three in four voters (77%) say it is likely that Iran will use the threat of nuclear attack to provide a shield for Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists to attack Israel
* The majority of voters approves of taking several specific actions to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran
Read the whole thing here.
Friday, May 15, 2009
How to make government more honest
Here's my lastest posting over at the Women's Post. I look at the age old tale of corruption and government.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
How to run a campaign in one easy video
Before embarking on their campaign attacking Liberal Michael Ignatieff, the Tories should have watched this video.
It teaches you how to really run a campaign.
It teaches you how to really run a campaign.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Media Alert
Scheduled on The Bill Kelly Show CHML Hamilton's 900 radio at 10:45 esp. Topic: Tory attack ad.
STV RIP
Looks like the Single Transferable Vote initiative went down to defeat last night in British Columbia.
In fact, only 39 percent of BC voters supported the idea.
Perhaps STV supporters will now call for it to be implement in 39 percent of the province.
In fact, only 39 percent of BC voters supported the idea.
Perhaps STV supporters will now call for it to be implement in 39 percent of the province.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Tory TV spot misses the mark
Well the Tories have unleashed their first anti-Michael Ignatieff TV ad and here it is:
I don't like it.
First off, it's the first attack ad I've ever seen which attacks the other guy for using attack ads! Talk about hypocrisy.
Secondly, the ad actually reproduces the Liberal message "Tory times are tough times" in the spot!!! That's like giving the Liberals free advertising.
Thirdly,the overall message -- Michael Ignatieff lived outside the country for 34 years -- is incredibly weak.
So what if Ignatieff lived outside Canada? That doesn't make him a bad person or a bad leader.
What will make him a bad leader are his ideas.
So instead of focusing on simplistic, nationalistic nonsense, the Tories should explain why a Liberal government will be bad government.
H/T Stephen Taylor
I don't like it.
First off, it's the first attack ad I've ever seen which attacks the other guy for using attack ads! Talk about hypocrisy.
Secondly, the ad actually reproduces the Liberal message "Tory times are tough times" in the spot!!! That's like giving the Liberals free advertising.
Thirdly,the overall message -- Michael Ignatieff lived outside the country for 34 years -- is incredibly weak.
So what if Ignatieff lived outside Canada? That doesn't make him a bad person or a bad leader.
What will make him a bad leader are his ideas.
So instead of focusing on simplistic, nationalistic nonsense, the Tories should explain why a Liberal government will be bad government.
H/T Stephen Taylor
Monday, May 11, 2009
STV?
Some friends of mine are really gung ho about the Single Transferable Vote proposal that British Columbians will be voting on tomorrow.
I am not too sure about the concept.
The conservative in me doesn't like the idea of radically changing a voting system which already seems to be working just fine.
The libertarian in me says instead of focussing on new ways to elect government we should be concentrating on ways to dismantle it.
The political part of me is worried STV will mean endless socialist/green coalition governments.
And no part of me understands how this convoluted system actually works.
I am not too sure about the concept.
The conservative in me doesn't like the idea of radically changing a voting system which already seems to be working just fine.
The libertarian in me says instead of focussing on new ways to elect government we should be concentrating on ways to dismantle it.
The political part of me is worried STV will mean endless socialist/green coalition governments.
And no part of me understands how this convoluted system actually works.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Celebrating the Iron Lady
Check out my latest posting over at the Women's Post.
It's my take on Margaret Thatcher, who this week celebrated the 30th anniversary of her taking office as Prime Minister.
It's my take on Margaret Thatcher, who this week celebrated the 30th anniversary of her taking office as Prime Minister.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Star Trekmania
In honour of the new Star Trek movie coming out this week, here are my picks for the top five episodes from the original series:
1. Balance of Terror
Yes it was a rip off of Run Silent, Run Deep but it features cool sci-fi-style combat.
2. The Corbomite Maneuver
That freaky alien dummy gave the creeps as a kid.
3. The Doomsday Machine
Captain Kirk must battle a giant bugle and guest star William Windom's overacting.
4. The Trouble with Tribbles
The tribbles were so cute!
5. Arena
Features classic hand-to-hand combat between Captain Kirk and a lizard man.
1. Balance of Terror
Yes it was a rip off of Run Silent, Run Deep but it features cool sci-fi-style combat.
2. The Corbomite Maneuver
That freaky alien dummy gave the creeps as a kid.
3. The Doomsday Machine
Captain Kirk must battle a giant bugle and guest star William Windom's overacting.
4. The Trouble with Tribbles
The tribbles were so cute!
5. Arena
Features classic hand-to-hand combat between Captain Kirk and a lizard man.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Union Dues and Politics
When I worked at the National Citizens Coalition, I always made sure to push for the rights of unionized employees who objected to union bosses using their forced dues for political purposes.
I am glad to see the Fraser Institute is picking up the fight.
I am glad to see the Fraser Institute is picking up the fight.
Monday, May 04, 2009
New site pushes for Senate reform
Check out this new website which has been set up to help promote the idea of an elected federal Senate.
The goal of the people behind the site, Betty Unger, Link Byfield and the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy, is to have Senate elections in all provinces by 2017.
The goal of the people behind the site, Betty Unger, Link Byfield and the Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy, is to have Senate elections in all provinces by 2017.
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on Newsline with Joe Easingwood, (CFAX Victoria) today at 1:30 PM EST.
Topic: Liberals
Topic: Liberals
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Liberal spot hopelessly hokey
The Liberals need to get some better PR guys. I mean seriously, check out this video from the Liberal convention.
It rates a 9.5 out of ten on the Nicholls Puke Meter.
First off it's hopelessly cutesy-wutesy, secondly it suffers from the "how many visible minorities can we squeeze into this spot" syndrome, third off it offers nothing but a bunch of hokey platitudes.
Well that's not true.
It also features an important reason to support Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff: He once had his photo taken standing next to Barack Obama.
It rates a 9.5 out of ten on the Nicholls Puke Meter.
First off it's hopelessly cutesy-wutesy, secondly it suffers from the "how many visible minorities can we squeeze into this spot" syndrome, third off it offers nothing but a bunch of hokey platitudes.
Well that's not true.
It also features an important reason to support Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff: He once had his photo taken standing next to Barack Obama.
Liberal convention survey
Check out my extremely scientific poll on on the Liberal Party convention.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Poor Dion
Here's my latest posting over at the Women's Post, I explain why I feel sorry for Stephane Dion.
Professor Ignatieff learns a Liberal lesson
Check out this column I wrote in today's Toronto Sun -- it examines the drawbacks the Liberals face in having an egghead leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
