Addicted to Twitter

Gotta say I am really getting addicted to Twitter.

With its 140 character limit, it's really the ideal form for political communication -- it forces you to get a message out in a concise manner, without a lot of substance.

Plus, it's like having access to your own private online news service.

Anyway, anybody who wants to "Follow" me can do so here: www.twitter.com/gerrynic

See below my top tweets from the last week or so:

* Desperate #LPC considers replacing Michael Ingatieff in TV debate with Pierre Trudeau's Panama hat.

* NDP to release platform today. In unrelated news, Canadians experience massive yawning epidemic.

 * Here's a deal for Liz May: I will support her getting in debates if she starts opposing stupid tax on grocery store plastic bags!

 * Item from #GPC platform: Sacrifice Ezra Levant to "some sort of Earth deity"

 * Don't want want to say the LPC is having $ problems, but Michael Ignatieff's "open letter" on health care arrived with postage due!

 * Glad to see #cpc determined to eliminate the deficit, since they are the ones who created it.

* New poll shows race tightening: 48% say elxn more boring than watching paint dry; 45% say paint drying slightly less boring.

* News flash: After putting journalists in platform "lock up" today, the #CPC "accidently" loses the key

  

* Elections: A period in a democracy when citizens exercise their right to learn all the dirty secrets of those running for office.

 * Possible scandal: Turns out former Conservative leader John A. Macdonald was not born in Canada!!

* Spoiler Alert: The surprise ending of Canadian election -- Michael Ignatieff is really Stephen Harper's son! 

* News flash: Green leader Elizabeth May is taking Britain to court for inventing "First past the post" electoral system

* News flash: Student complains Liberal security team forced her to attend Ignatieff rally!

Media Alert

Am scheduled to be a guest today on the Arlene Bynon Show (AM 640 Radio) to discuss the election at 2:30 PM ET.

Media Alert 2

I am scheduled to be a guest tonight on The World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge.

Topic: Election

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the CBC program Connect with Mark Kelley, tonight at about 8:10 PM ET.

Topic: Crime and Punishment .... and politics.

Accountability in schools

If you are in the Toronto area and you care about education, then I highly recommend you attend "MEASURING UP:  A Conference on School Accountability".

This event will feature several interesting speakers,  including Sun News personality Theo Caldwell.

And if that doesn't entice you get this: Also if you attend you will get to see the Canadian premier of the controversial documentary The Cartel.

Anyway, check out the details here and register today! 

Media Alert 3

Will be on Power Play tonight to talk strategy at around 8:30 PM.

Media Alert 2

I will be a guest on The Afternoon News with Richard Brown today at 7:35 PM ET, to talk about Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the media.

Me in the Hill Times

Proud to say that I have signed on as a regular columnist with the Ottawa Hill Times for the duration of the federal election.

You can read my first effort here, on the issue of regulating political ads. (Note, it's behind a subscription wall)

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be part of  panel this morning on CBC radio's The Current at about 8:30 AM ET to discuss the election.

The problem with Red Books

Today the Liberal Party is unveiling its "Red Book".

The Liberals, of course, are hoping the 2011 Red Book will perform the same magic as the 1993 Red Book which helped propel them to a majority government.

It's a good theory, except for one thing: The 1993 Red Book story line is a bunch of baloney!

The Liberals won in 1993, not because of any  book, but for the simple reason that Jean Chretien was not Brian Mulroney. Canadians wanted change.

Plus, the Progressive Conservatives under  Kim Campbell ran the worst election campaign in the history of the universe.

In fact, I would suspect that only about 0.01 percent of the Canadian population in 1993 even read the Red Book.

So releasing a Red Book in this election won't help the Liberals -- but it could very well hurt them.

After all, the Tories will be poring over Ignatieff's Red Book seeking out any unpopular proposals which they can pounce on spin and against the Liberals.

Before the day is done, in other words, the Liberals could very well be on the defensive.

And that's the problem with coming out with specific policy ideas during an election campaign.

Every idea you propose has the potential of alienating voters. Why take that chance?

A much better strategy is to stick to vague promises and emotional appeals.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest today on The Weekend Morning News (CKNW Vancouver) at 10:15 AM ET to talk about the election.

Greens just over-hyped fringe party

The Ottawa Citizen asked me to elaborate on my recent blog posting on the Green Party. You can read the resulting column here.

Did the Tories trigger Coalition attack too soon?

Beware the reckless Coalition!

That’s been the Conservative Party of Canada’s main message from the onset of this election.

The Conservatives believe raising the specter of a possible Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition forming the next government will translate into voters opting for a “stable” Conservative majority.

In other words, the Conservatives are pinning their hopes on fear.

It’s not a bad strategy. Fear works in politics.

But, in my view, the Conservatives played the “Coalition fear card” too aggressively and too soon for maximum effectiveness.

Indeed, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was blasting the Coalition even before the writ was dropped.

On the day the House of Commons was dissolved the Conservatives sent out a news release with the headline: “Only Stephen Harper Can Deliver The Stable National Government That Canada Needs To Complete The Economic Recovery and Keep Taxes Low.” The subtitle read: “The alternative is Ignatieff’s reckless Coalition backed by the Bloc Québécois.”

In the short term, of course, this worked like a charm.

The media, which is always more interested with the “politics of politics” than with boring policy issues, eagerly latched onto the Conservative’s Coalition spin and played it up.

Thus in the opening days of the campaign, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was peppered with media questions about whether or not he would form a Coalition.

Fortunately, for the Conservatives, Ignatieff’s initial response was poor. Rather than just dismissing Harper’s Coalition stratagem as a “phony issue” designed to distract voters from the “real issues”, he opted instead to deny, deny, deny.

Going on the defensive like that is never a good idea. Consider Richard Nixon’s famous, “I am not a crook” defence.

As they say in the communications business, “when you’re denying, you’re dying.”

Plus Ignatieff’s denials about forming a Coalition were couched in terms that were just vague enough to leave room for interpretation.

More importantly nobody believed him anyway.

All this, no doubt, did make Canadians wary and fearful for a lot of reasons.

 Coalition governments are not the norm in this country. Many Canadians would be uneasy about the socialist NDP having a say in running the economy. Most of all, Canadians would instinctively reject the idea of a federal government propped up by the separatist Bloc.

However, the important question is this: can the Conservatives sustain the fear of a Coalition government over a six week period?

That’s a long time in politics.

Certainly, it’s enough time for Canadians to get used to the idea of a Coalition.  It’s also enough time for voters to get bored with the Conservative’s “reckless Coalition” refrain or possibly to generate a backlash.

More importantly, it’s enough time for the Liberals to figure out a way to change the channel and to go on the attack.

That’s why it would have been better for the Conservatives had they waited until say a week before Election Day to hammer away at the “Be very afraid of the Coalition” theme.

They could have blitzed the TV airwaves with ads saying things like, “Do you want Jack Layton as Canada’s next Minister of Finance?” or “Michael Ignatieff wants the Bloc Quebecois to run Canada!”

That would have certainly stirred things up and perhaps driven undecided voters into the Tory camp.

The point is holding off your most lethal attack to the last minute works because most casual voters only start paying attention to the campaigns in the last few days before they vote.

Plus by holding off, you don’t give the opposition enough time to formulate a counter-attack.

None of this is to say the Conservatives current strategy won’t work.

But it would have worked better had they held their fire a little bit longer.

Green Rant

An argument is raging over whether or not Green Party leader Elizabeth May should be included in the leaders’ TV debates.

This, of course, is the same argument we had during the last election.

Here's my take.

Seems to me the TV stations should have the right to determine who is and who isn’t included in the debates. If the Green Party and their supporters don't like being excluded let them form their own TV network.

That’s point one.

Point two is you have to draw the line somewhere, and I believe these debates should be reserved only for the leaders of actual bona fide parties.

And to my mind, the Green Party is not a real party.

It’s just the creation of a fawning media.

For years, the media, who love the trendy idea of an environmental party, have given May a free ride.

She’s their darling, an unconventional politician who does politics differently.

Good media coverage then translates into good polling numbers.

And by the way, one other big reason the Green Party gets good polling numbers is because pollsters have been bullied into naming them as an option.

How many times do you see the Libertarian Party or the Communist Party or the Christian Heritage Party listed on a polling survey?

They are just listed under the “Other” category.

Yet, the Green Party is right up there with the Conservatives and Liberals.

And another reason the Green Party polls well is that a lot of Canadians simply like the idea of helping the environment. If you had a Health Care Party or a Let’s lower Taxes Party on a polling survey I bet they would get more than 5 percent support too.

Yet, when it came time to actually vote most Canadians still would rather support a traditional party.

That’s why the Green Party never does as well on election night as its polling numbers indicates it should, much to the surprise of its media cheerleaders.

Indeed, the Green Party has never elected a single MP to the House of Commons, this despite getting May in the leader’s debates and despite all the positive media coverage.

No, the Greens are not a real party.

They are just a travelling road show for Elizabeth May, who figures the best way to save the environment is to run and lose in a different federal riding each election.

The Coalition Cabinet?

Since the possibility of a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition government isn’t getting nearly enough media attention, I thought I would add my two cents.

More specifically, I was wondering what a Coalition Government cabinet might look like, hypothetically speaking, of course.

We all know Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has promised not to ever, ever, ever form a Coalition, unless he does.

Anyway, here’s my prediction of a possible Coalition cabinet:

Michael Ignatieff - Prime Minister (or as it the office will henceforth be known “Czar of all the Russias”)

Jack Layton – Minister in Charge of Tax and Spend

Gilles Duceppe – Minister Responsible for Transferring Alberta Wealth to Quebec

Elizabeth May – Minister of De-Industrialization (Will also be responsible for turning off the lights when debate in the House of Commons is over.)

Justin Trudeau: Minister in Charge of Multicultural Barbarism

Thomas Mulcair – Minister of Undermining Jack Layton

Bob Rae - Minister of Making Socialism Work This Time

Ken Dryden – Minister for Boring Speeches

Hey, I just thought of something. Given this potential all-star cabinet line up, I wonder why the Liberals don’t want to talk about a possible Coalition?

Media Alert

I am scheduled to appear on CTV Newsnet's Power Play tonight at 8:25 PM ET to discuss election strategy.

Media Alert 2

I am scheduled to be a guest on Weekend Chat Room (CFRA Radio Ottawa) at 7:35 PM ET to talk election.

Media Alert

Am scheduled to be a guest on The Arlene Bynon Show (AM 640) today at 2:10 PM ET to talk Election stuff.

Coalition questions

As we all know by now a key element in the Conservative Party election strategy will be to use every opportunity to brand Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff with the "C" word -- Coalition.

On the face of it, this is a pretty good plan.

One of the most powerful emotions in politics, after all, is fear. The Liberals played this card against the Conservatives in previous elections with their "Harper has a scary hidden agenda" tactic.

Now the Tories are turning the tables and trying to whip up fears that if there is another minority government the Liberals, NDP and Bloc will from an unholy "socialist-separatist" alliance just as they did in late 2008.

But while this certainly makes sense, I still have a few questions:

1. How many Canadians today still fear or even remember the 2008 "Coalition"? It would be an interesting poll question to ask voters "What is the Coalition"?

2. In 2008 the Coalition was most hated in Western Canada where the Conservatives are already strong. It was most popular in Quebec where the Conservatives want to make gains. Does this mean ranting against the Coalition could be a net political disadvantage for the Conservatives?

3. Will it be enough of an issue to have any punch by the time Election Day arrives?

Anyway, this is what the Tories will run on so they must have the answers.

Media Alert 3

I am scheduled to be a guest on The World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge at 11:00 PM ET to talk election.

Media Alert 2

Am scheduled to be a guest on Friendly Fire with Ryan Dolye, (Newstalk 1010) to discuss politics tonight between 7-8 PM ET.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the Afternoon Show with Richard Brown (CJME Regina) today at 5:00 PM ET to discuss election fever!

Gloating Alert

Wow, looks like a spring election will be called today.

Who could have predicted such a thing!

Oh yeah, I could and did --- three months ago. See here and here.

Now you know why I am one of Canada's Top Five Political Minds.

Why did the Opposition do it?

The big question of the day  has to be: Is the Opposition crazy?

I mean, it makes total sense for the Conservatives to want an election this spring. The polls look good, the country is in no mood to change governments,  the Liberals are weak. It all adds up to a Tory majority.

But why are the NDP and Liberals so eager to pull the plug? Yes, they look and sound confident, but General Custer probably looked and sounded confident before he took on Sitting Bull.

The answer, I think is the Opposition parties are victims of their own over-heated partisan rhetoric. For two years, they have been telling Canadians the Harper government was pushing a reckless "right wing agenda", that it was trampling our democratic institutions, that it was ethically challenged, etc.

In the process, they revved up their base, made them eager to take down the big bad Tories.

In other words, they painted themselves into a corner with their own words. Had NDP leader Jack Layton or Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff failed to oppose the budget after all their tough talk, they would have come across as wimps, undermined their credibility and angered their own supporters.

The Harper Tories understood this and manipulated the situation to their advantage. (Make no mistake, the Conservatives wanted the Opposition to oppose their budget.)

One other mystery is why did Layton show his cards on budget day? Why didn't he drag out the drama for a day or two just to ensure himself more publicity?

After all, once he declared he would oppose the budget, he went, in just a few minutes, from being the "most important man in Canada" to just the leader of a fourth place party.

The answer is probably internal politics. I suspect Layton's MPs were split between election doves and hawks. Perhaps Layton worried his party's unity might crack under the intense media scrutiny that would result with his playing coy.

By declaring he would oppose the budget, Layton, in effect, burned his bridges. His MPs would show unity whether they liked it or not.

Not that it matters now.

All that matters now is we are very likely heading into a federal election.

Should be fun.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on Connect with Mark Kelley tonight at 8:10 PM ET.

Topic:

Budget/Election

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the Murray Langdon Show (CFAX radio Victoria) today at 1:35 PM ET.

Topics: The crazy week ahead.

Media Alert

Am scheduled to be a guest on the Arlene Bynon Show (640 AM Toronto) today  at 1:10 PM ET to talk about Liberal ads and Working Families.

Reviewing the Liberal ads

In yet another sign a federal election might be near the Liberals have released a couple of new TV spots -- one sort of negative, the other positive.

Here's the attack ad.



This is a good ad from a stylistic and technical viewpoint. Great visuals, ominous music, clear concise message. I especially like the part at the end when the words "deceit", "abuse" and "contempt" are stamped on the screen in big red letters. You could watch this ad with the sound turned off and still get the message, which is the mark of a good TV spot. But it has one big problem -- the content. The ad focuses on a series of "mini-scandals"  which, as I have noted before, won't resonate with the public. Political messages which scream "they are a bunch of crooks" just don't work all that well. So this ad likely won't  have much impact with the casual voter. On the other hand, simply by releasing an aggressive ad the Liberals are sending out the message that they are willing to duke it out with the Tories, countering Conservative attack ads with their own attack ads. This will at least help mobilize and energize a demoralized Liberal base, which is not a small thing.

Score 7 out of 10.

Here's the positive spot.



One word: boring!

This is the kind of spot you dream up when you don't have any ideas for an ad.  Here's what probably happened in  Liberal HQ:

Consultant 1: Well, we have no issues. We are down in the polls. Nothing is sticking to the Tories.What do we do?

Consultant 2: I have it! Let's have the leader mumble some Liberal talking points while speaking directly to the camera?

Consultant 1: Brilliant! We can whip that up in two minutes. Now who wants to order lunch?

Well, I think the Liberals should have worked at little harder. First off, Michael Ignatieff doesn't exactly exude charisma on the screen, so why they have an ad with just him talking is beyond me.

At least throw some visuals in the spot. Have him in a classroom, a senior centre, or have some words appear on the screen. Anything to break the tedium.

Also, the content is really weak. Seems to me what Canadians really care about is the economy. The stuff Ignatieff rattles on about is likely lower on the national priority list. (Although I did like the crack about the G 20 "lake") Not that it matters since most viewers will likely tune this dud out.

Score: 4 out of 10.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the show Square Off -- CHCH TV -- to debate a New Democrat on the question of using forced dues for politics.

That's today at 5:30 ET.

Union bosses bashing democracy in Ontario

Working Families is a front group for big union bosses.

Nothing wrong with that.

It emerges every provincial election in Ontario with the sole purpose of running  attack ads designed to undermine the Progressive Conservatives.

Nothing wrong with that.

To finance their ad campaigns they use forced union dues squeezed out of the pockets of unionized employees.

And there's a lot wrong with that!

It's wrong for union bosses to essentially compel unionized employees to finance a political campaign whether they like it or not.

This practice is clearly undemocratic. It's also an infringement on free expression and free association. Just as we have the right to associate with any group, we should also have the right not to associate.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

In the case of Working Families, there are likely many unionized employees in Ontario who would vehemently disagree with a political campaign attacking the PCs, but who nevertheless are being forced to support such an effort.

And it's all legal under Ontario's labour laws.

This must change. We need to reform labour laws in Ontario to restore a vital democratic freedom to unionized employees.

No one should be forced to subsidize the pet political causes of union bosses.

If the unions want to mount a political campaign, let them use money raised voluntarily.

That's how democracies are supposed to operate.

Campaign Finance Laws

Here's a letter to the editor I sent to the Globe and Mail in response to this editorial:

Dear Sir/Madam:
Your recent editorial on Canada’s election finance laws failed to mention their most obvious drawbacks.

These are the laws which impose artificial limits on how much money Canadians can donate to political parties and how much those political parties can spend during elections.

As such they infringe on free political expression; they confer an unfair advantage to incumbents and hurt smaller political parties; they almost guarantee candidates for a party’s leadership will face mountains of personal debt; and apparently they force political parties into undertaking questionable accounting practices.

In short, they undermine Canadian democracy.

That’s why instead of being revised, these campaign finance laws should be scrapped.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the Michael Harris Show today at 1:45 PM ET. Topics: Politics.

Cynical reality check

The Opposition parties, along with their media allies, are salivating over the idea of fighting the next federal election on government ethics.

They are making a big mistake. It won't work.

And yes, I know over the past few weeks the Tories have suffered a series of embarrassing black eyes: the Oda affair; the Jason Kenney "letterhead" fiasco; the Harper government "branding" nonsense and the Speaker of the House ruling the government in contempt.

Obviously this is all bad PR for the Harper Tories.

But in the real world of politics none of these issues is serious enough to inflict a mortal wound.

The reality is while the media and political partisans might care about this stuff, for the casual voter, who really isn't paying attention, it's just so much white noise.

That's not to say the casual voter is disinterested in politics. Far from it. But they have different priorities than Ottawa watchers.

The casual voter cares more about the price of gasoline than about Bev Oda; more about protecting his or her job than about political dirty tricks; more about their standard of living than about rulings by the Speaker.

That's why if the Liberals and NDP make "government ethics" the main message of their campaigns, it won't resonate with Canadians.

People just won't care. They want a strong leader who will protect their quality of life.

Indeed, if given a choice voters will always choose a shady but competent politician over an honest but incompetent one.

Think Nixon over McGovern, Clinton over Dole, Chretien over Day.

This all may sound cynical, but it's just how the political world works.

Political movies

With a spring federal election in the offing, I would like to suggest some recent movies to help get us in the mood.

The Walking Dead:

A fascinating documentary on the election chances of the Ignatieff Liberals

The King’s Speech:

A behind the scenes look at the difficulties facing our King – aka Prime Minster Stephen Harper

Unknown:

Examines the reasons why anyone would ever vote for the NDP.

I Am Number Four:

The Gilles Duceppe story

Does Elections Canada have it in for the Tories?

I am not usually one for conspiracy theories, but when it comes to Elections Canada I make an exception.

Check out my Ottawa Citizen column on the current legal battle between the bureaucrats and the government.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest today on the Michael Harris Show, (CFRA Ottawa) at 1:45 PM ET, to discuss current events.

Why the "In and out" scandal won't stick

Lots of buzz about the so-called "In and out" scandal.

Elections Canada has charged the Conservative Party with some sort of convoluted accounting shenanigans.

Seems like a big issue. But is it? Will it hurt the Tories in the next election?

Nope and here's why.

To really work politically, a scandal must have two characteristics: a) It must be something that somehow harms average voters and b) it must be easy to understand and explain.

The "In and out" business fails on both counts.

First off, who cares if the Conservatives were monkeying around with the books and breaking some obscure Elections Canada regulation?

The way the average casual voter sees it most politicians are crooks anyway. So the "in and out" stuff won't really shock or anger. Just the usual "politicians being politicians" nonsense.

More importantly this scandal is just too complicated to easily explain. Something about the Conservatives shifting $1.3-million in ad expenses from its national campaign for the 2006 election to 67 individual candidates, who paid for the nationally produced ads through bank transfers .... sorry, dozed off there for a second.

The point is you need to be a CMA to follow all the money trails laid out in this story.

Not the  kind of thing you can exploit in a 30 second TV spot.

Contrast all this to the Adscam scandal. Now that was a scandal you could write home about.

It featured politicians taking our hard earned money and giving it to their fat cat buddies in the ad business.

You see how I explained it in just a few words. You see how it gets you angry?

So if the Liberals and NDP think this Elections Canada scandal is a winner they need to go back to politics school.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the Arlene Bynon Show (640 AM Radio in Toronto)today at 1:10 PM ET to discuss the latest spate of political ads.

Reviewing the (new) Conservative TV spots

The Conservatives have come out with two new ads; one I  like a lot, the other less so.

Let's start with the ad I think works very well:



This ad works because, unlike other Tory attack ads, it sticks to issues and doesn't go after Michael Ignatieff's character.

Plus, rather than taking on a bunch of issues it focuses on one main idea: Ignatieff wants to raise taxes. It then reinforces the message with a few strong examples in a visually interesting way.

It also helps advance the Tory narrative about the Liberals wanting to force an unwanted election.

This is the kind of ad that will both motivate the Conservative base and drive down the Liberal numbers with casual voters.

Score: 8 out of 10.

The next ad is more positive and less effective.




You get the feeling the Tories just put this together to offset criticism about all their negative stuff.

Anyway, this ad is pure saccharine hokiness. Kind of stuff that makes jaded, cynical observers (aka me) want to puke.

That's not to say hokey can't work in politics, it certainly can work, but  not in this particular ad.

The biggest problem with the spot is its narrator: Prime Minister Harper.

After all, let's face it, Harper is a competent leader and a smart tactician, but a great communicator, he aint.

Harper just can't connect with voters on an emotional level; he doesn't inspire people. In short, he is no Ronald Regan.

So why play to your weakness? Why have Harper narrate the ad? Why not go with a professional announcer?

Plus as the narrator Harper can't brag about himself! This makes the ad somewhat flat.

And finally, there is just too much feel good pontificating before you get to the actual gist of the ad: Things are OK don't mess things up.

The message, in short, gets lost in the all the feel-good flag waving.

Score: 5 out of 10.

Reviewing the NDP TV spot

This is the NDP's new TV spot; it's not all that imaginative, but it does serve the party's strategic needs.



Content-wise the ad takes a populist rather than socialist stance. In fact, with its attack on "insiders" and "lobbyists", it starts off sounding almost like an American Tea Party ad!

This makes sense given I believe the NDP's communications strategy will be to achieve three aims:

1.To calm jitters about the party's socialist agenda by  playing up the idea that the NDP is really about standing up for "little guy".

2. To remind voters that Jack Layton is the NDP leader

3. To show Canadians the NDP wants to get its message out in a positive manner.

This is last point is the most important because the next election should erupt into a no-holds-barred blood feud between the Liberals and Conservatives, with each side whacking the other with increasingly negative spots.

This leaves room for the NDP to position themselves as the good guys, the guys who are staying clean and who are talking about issues.

In short, the New Democrat strategy will be to say: "If you are sick of all the negative stuff, come to us we are the positive alternative."

Not a bad idea. And this ad helps frame that strategic narrative.

My only quibble is the ad lacks a visual reinforcement of the message. It should, for instance, have the key points appear as words on the screen. Also would have been nice to see Layton move around a bit, give the spot some motion.

Score: 7 out of 10.

Media update: Election and Oda

A couple of media notes.

First, I am quoted in this Ottawa Hill Times article on the prospects of a federal election this spring.

Plus, today the Winnipeg Free Press published a letter to the editor I wrote on the Kairos affair in response to this column by Frances Russell:

Dear Sir/Madam:

Frances Russell is correct to castigate the federal government for its clumsy handling of the Kairos affair (Religion underlies battle over Oda, Feb. 23).

However, she is wrong to suggest only evangelical Christians oppose funding advocacy groups.

In fact, Canadians of all denominations would likely oppose using tax dollars to subsidize such groups, especially at a time when the country faces a massive deficit.

This is not about religion, it's about common sense. Advocacy groups should not grind their axes with our taxes.

Standing with Scott

There's a battle going on in Wisconsin to see who runs the state, the people or big union bosses.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest today at 1:45 PM ET on the Michael Harris Show, (CFRA Ottawa) to discuss federal political issues.

Bragging about spending

In what seems an awful lot like a pre-election blitz, Conservative Cabinet Ministers and MPs are fanning out across the country to brag about all the government spending entailed in the "Economic Action Plan".

That's the plan remember that burdened Canada with a massively huge deficit.

And while they are at it, Tory MPs will also announce about $261 million in new spending initiatives.

Nothing new about this, of course.

Politicians have been bribing voters with their own money since the days of Ancient Rome. (Vote for Quintus and get a new Colosseum.)

However, let's be clear exactly what the Tories are crowing about.

All their spending will mean:

* Bigger deficits, more national debt.

* Future taxes on our children

* More public investment at the expense of private investment

* Less money for Canadians to spend as they see fit

*  Bigger government

* A resurrection of Keynesian mythology

When you look at it that way, maybe instead of bragging, the Conservatives should be apologizing.

The Best US President

Yesterday was President's Day in the U.S., so here a day late, is a column I wrote a few years ago on the man I consider the best president of all time.

****************************

Who was the best U.S. president of all time?

Ask that question and you might get answers like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or maybe Thomas Jefferson.

But Lawrence Reed, who heads up an American think tank known as the Foundation for Economic Education, would have a different answer.

I recently heard Reed deliver a speech at a conference in Michigan where he made the case that America’s best all time president was actually Grover Cleveland.

My first reaction on hearing that was, Grover who?

And then my American history class from high school kicked in. Grover Cleveland, I recalled, is the answer to a trivia question: he is the only president in American history to serve two non-consecutive terms.

He served as America’s president from 1885–1889 and then again from1893–1897. But that’s not what Reed liked about Cleveland. It turns out Cleveland was one of America’s most honest presidents and also one of its most principled believers in economic freedom.

His honesty, in fact, was well known to Cleveland’s contemporaries.

An editorial in the New York World which endorsed Cleveland for the presidency in 1884, gave four reasons to support him: “1. He’s an honest man. 2. He’s an honest man. 3. He’s an honest man. 4. He’s an honest man.”

And it was this honesty which formed the foundation for his political convictions. As Reed noted, Cleveland felt it dishonest for “the government to spend more than it had and send its bills to future generations.

So he always worked to produce a balanced budget. He even felt it was dishonest for government to run a large surplus — ‘ruthless extortion,’ he called it — because it was a sign that government had taken more from the people than it needed.

 And it was dishonest, he felt, for government to think it could spend money better than the people who first earned it.

That’s why Cleveland was also opposed to high tariffs. In his view it was dishonest for the government to promote an economic policy that harmed consumers and which bestowed special privileges to politically-connected business leaders.

And so determined was Cleveland to control government spending that he vetoed twice as many bills as all previous 21 presidents combined. Sometimes that forced him to make tough decisions. In 1887, for instance, he vetoed a bill to provide $10,000 in relief to Texas farmers whose crops had been wiped out by drought.

To justify this decision Cleveland declared, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people." 

Grover believed private charities, not government, should support the people. And, indeed, in this case that’s what happened. A newspaper appealed to its readers and raised the $10,000 to help the Texas farmers buy new seed. Of course, being honest and principled and keeping government small doesn’t make for exciting history, which is perhaps why Cleveland is largely forgotten today. And that’s too bad.

Certainly America, and for that matter Canada, could use a politician like Cleveland who put principle and conviction ahead of political gain.

Shameless, self-promoting media whoring alert

I am scheduled to appear on CFAX radio, this afternoon at 12:10 ET to discuss Bev Oda and the latest poll numbers.

Government spending in nots

The Fraser Institute calculates that in order to balance the budget, the federal government needs to slash spending by about $16 billion.

A big task.

In fact, cutting spending that much would be the equivalent of denying Kairos any funding every year for the next 2,285 years!

That's a lot of "nots".

Accountability in schools

If you care about the state of education in this country, then I would strongly urge you to attend the Society for Quality Education's upcoming seminar on school accountability.

To be held on April 26th, in Toronto, the seminar will discuss such questions as whether or not public schools are accountable, if accountability helps students perform better academically and how exactly do you measure accountability in schools.

The seminar will also include the Canadian premier showing of the controversial film, The Cartel.

Speakers for the event include: businessman, author, Theo Caldwell,  former Education Minister, John Snobelen, and Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

(I will also be there moderating one of the panels.)

So it should be quite an interesting day, on an issue that truly matters.

Note -If you register before March 31st, you get a discount.

Hope to see you there. 

CTF Debt Clock

One of the hardest things to do in politics is whip up public interest in the National Debt.

I know, I've tried.

The problem is that although our crushing national debt is a serious fiscal problem, it's also a largely abstract problem.

You can't see the National Debt; it's negative impact on the economy isn't readily apparent; and as far as public policy issues go, unless you're an economist, the debt just isn't all that sexy.

Plus politicians usually have a short-term incentive to fatten the national debt with deficit spending.

After all, it's easier to brag about "stimulus" spending than it is to reduce the deficit.

That's why I am glad to see the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is making an effort to visualize the problem for Canadians with its "National Debt Clock."

Check it out and watch the debt numbers on the chronometer whiz by at warp speed.

It's depressing but it also brings home the message in a powerful way that government spending is out of control.

That's a warning Canadians need to hear loud and clear.

So help the CTF get out the word.

Pass Debt Clock along to your friends and donate a few dollars to the CTF.

Let's put the Debt Clock numbers in reverse.

Why I liked Goldwater

I am reading the late Barry Goldwater's autobiography and came across his reasons for seeking political office.

Here's what the former US Senator and one-time Presidential candidate wrote:

"I had little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I meant to reduce it in size. I did not undertake to promote welfare, for I proposed to extend freedom. My aim was not to pass laws but to repeal them. It was not to inaugurate new programs but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden ... and if were later to be attacked for neglecting my constituent's interests, I would reply that I had been informed that their main interest was liberty and in that cause I was doing the very best I could."

That's what a true conservative sounds like.

The lesson of Oda

The whole Bev Oda scandal could have been avoided if the Conservative Party simply had more confidence in conservatism.

Just imagine, for instance, if Oda had stood up in the House of Commons months ago and emphatically stated she was denying Kairos any government funds for one simple reason: it's wrong to use tax dollars to subsidize a private church group.

That's how a conservative would handle it.

Yes, denying Kairos funds in this manner would have triggered outrage from the Left, the media and the rest of the chattering classes.

But so what?

After all, that's what politics should be about -- debate.

And besides, the Conservatives could have easily won the PR battle on this. I doubt very much if the average Canadian voter wants to see his tax dollars funneled into some left-wing religious organization, especially given the country is burdened with a monstrous deficit.

But no, rather than taking an ideological stand the Conservatives tried to pass the buck by suggesting bureaucrats were against funding Kairos, even when that wasn't the case.

I guess they figured this would mute dissent.

If that's the case they sure miscalculated. The issue being debated now isn't about Kairos or about the wisdom of it receiving government funding, now the debate is all about the Tories blatantly undermining the integrity of the House of Commons.

That's a PR battle the Tories will lose.

And it all happened because for some reason the Conservatives don't want to be seen as too conservative or too ideological.

That's too bad.

Shakespeare wrote, "To thine own self be true."

That's a lesson the Conservatives should take to heart.

Maybe it's time for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to forget the PR gurus, forget the consultants and forget the spin doctors -- maybe it's time for Harper to simply act and govern like a true conservative.

 Harper should be Harper.

Media Alert X 2

I am scheduled to do interviews today, one on The Michael Harris Show (CFRA Radio) at 1:45 PM ET, the other on the CHCH TV show "Square off" at 5:30 PM ET.

Topic: Bev Oda.

Here's a preview of my views:

Should Oda be fired: Yes

Will Oda be fired: No

Will the Oda affair have any lasting political ramifications: Probably not.

De-constructing the cabinet

The Opposition wants Bev Oda, the Minister of International Co-operation, to resign because she doctored a document.

The first thought that struck me when I heard this story was, "Why do we even need a Minister of International Co-operation?"

I mean what is the purpose of this ministry? To get Canada to co-operate with the world? To get other countries to co-operate with each other? To urge more international co-operation when it comes to co-operating?

OK, I am just joking.

I actually know the real purpose of this Ministry is to perform the important and necessary function of giving a politician a nice paying job.

But anyway, the Oda story got me thinking about other federal cabinet posts and if we could eliminate any of them for the purpose of making government smaller.

So I did some research while waiting for my toast to pop and came up with the following list of cabinet posts that should be abolished:

* Ministry of Public Safety
Wasn't this what they once called the KGB?.

* Public Works
Actually that's probably is a misprint. It should read "Public Porks"

* International Trade
Seems to me international trade existed for centuries before this post was invented.

* Citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism
Otherwise known as the "Recruiting immigrants to support our party department"

* Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Main purpose is to figure out inventive ways to finance arenas in Quebec.

* Canadian Heritage and Official Languages
Manages to waste tax dollars in both French and English.

* Sport
Organizes tail gate parties for party donors.

* Chief government whip
Not a figure of speech. I think somebody actually wields a whip!

And in order to ensure there is no regional bias when tax money is squandered in vote-buying splurges we have the following ministries:.

* Western economic diversification

* Science and technology, Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario 

* Economy Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec 

Of course, I don't expect any of these posts to ever be eliminated.

But a guy can dream, can't he?

A win for freedom

Sometimes you can fight City Hall.

Just ask Marta and Lech Jaworski, a courageous couple who took on a bunch of bullying municipal bureaucrats and won.

Here's the back story:

For the past ten years the Jaworskis have allowed their son, Peter, to use their rural Ontario property to host the Liberty Summer Seminar, one of the premier libertarian/conservative events in Canada.

Never had a problem.

But last year, acting on an anonymous complaint, officials from the Municipality of Clarington claimed by hosting the LSS the Jaworskis had violated an obscure zoning by-law.

The charge carried with it a staggering $50,000 fine.

The Jaworskis, who were barely making ends meet, would have been ruined.

When they tried to talk reason with local officials the only advice the mayor could give was they should “beg for mercy.”

Well, the Jaworskis, who escaped from Communist Poland, didn't do "begging" . They decided, instead, to fight back.

And fortunately, they soon had the support of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, an excellent organization that mounts legal challenges to defend individual liberty.

The CCF argued by banning the LSS, the Clarington authorities were infringing on the right to free assembly.

It was a good argument. So good, in fact, the charges against the Jaworskis were dropped. Read about the case here.

This story provides two key lessons.

First, sometimes the best way to stand up for freedom is just to show a willingness to fight. Bureaucrats and politicians often don't expect us to fight for our rights. And when we do, they will sometimes back off.

Second, it's important to have organizations out there that care about promoting and protecting conservative values, organizations like the CCF.

Please contribute to this worthy organization.

There are a lot of battles yet to be won.

Scaring the voters

As far as outward appearances go our federal party leaders -- Conservative Stephen Harper, Liberal Michael Ignatieff, New Democrat Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Gilles Duceppe --- don’t seem all that scary.

 Indeed if you didn’t know they were party leaders, you might think they were harmless, geeky, middle aged philosophy professors.

Yet when the next election rolls around an army of consultants, spin doctors, ad guys and pollsters will work day and night coming up with imaginative ways to make voters believe each leader is actually the stuff of nightmares.

When they are finished this is how each leader will likely be defined:

Stephen Harper
Harper is a heartless, mean-spirited, bully who likes to drown endangered animals in toxic tar sands, plus he is harboring a dangerous “hidden agenda” that will include installing the Taliban as head of Canada’s cultural agencies; forcing women to join convents and re-militarizing the Rhineland.

Michael Ignatieff

Ignatieff hates Canada. In fact, he hates Canada so much he actually left the country to live and work in a foreign land, where he picked up all sorts of treacherous and foreign ideas. Now he’s back to contaminate our country with his foreign-inspired book-learning ways. He must be stopped!

Jack Layton
Don’t let the socialist façade fool you. Layton is no friend of the working man. He is actually Harper/Ignatieff’s best friend. A vote for Layton is actually a vote for Harper/Ingatieff. Every vote for Layton brings Canada closer to rule by Capitalist Robber Barons/A Communist Coalition. Be afraid!

Gilles Duceppe

Duceppe is a traitor of the Quebec Nation. After all, every riding in the province that supports Duceppe, will lose out on the usual disproportionate amount of federal pork that’s doled out to Quebec in order to buy votes. Duceppe is denying Quebec’s its rightful plunder!

So those are your choices in the next election.

Vote wisely.

Vintage Gerry: Romancing the left

For those of you who think my criticisms of Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his lack of conservatism is some sort of new agenda, let me direct you to an article I wrote  way back in 1999. And yes, that's when Harper was my boss and he approved the text.

Romancing the Left

Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark recently provided a dramatic illustration of what's wrong with the political right in Canada today.

It happened when the former Prime Minister waded into a mob of angry left-wing activists who were in Ottawa to protest poverty (is anyone in favor of poverty?). Clark's plan was to assure this group - really nothing but a bunch of socialist rabble-rousers - that he too was concerned about poverty and homelessness, that yes the Liberals were not spending enough on social programs and that Tories really did have a heart.

And you know, the protesters gave him a big hand - but unfortunately for Clark they wanted to wrap it around his throat. Indeed, had it not been for the presence of some police officers, the Tories might have had another unexpected vacancy in their leadership.

The lesson from this little incident is crystal clear: conservative politicians have no business trying to win over a political element that's antagonistic to everything conservatism is supposed to stand for. It's not that conservatives are from Mars and socialists are from Venus; it's that their from different ideological galaxies.

Yet that hasn't stopped certain conservative leaders from obsessively wooing the left. We've got Reform Party leader Preston Manning bargaining his party's principles for a United Alternative; Ontario Conservative Premier Mike Harris eagerly throwing buckets of tax dollars at our socialistic health care monopoly; and Joe Clark . . . well Joe Clark just being Joe Clark.

And why are these leaders doing all this? Well, these love-starved political Romeos seem to have this Harlequin romance-like notion that ideological opposites should somehow magically attract. Just as the Lion will one day lay down with the lamb, left wingers could one day vote for parties of the right. And to help the process along a bit, conservative leaders are more than willing to engage in a little political flirtation even if that means shedding their conservative policy attire and slipping into something a little sexier, a little hipper, a little lefter.

Underlying the conservative courtship strategy, of course, is the belief that leftists go for the sensitive, compassionate types. So it's goodby Margaret Thatcher; hello Alexa McDonough. If the left wants compassion, conservative leaders will give them compassion. And if you look in the official politicians' handbook you will find "compassion" defined as "spending lots of other people's tax dollars so that you can feel good about yourself." Do it in an election and this tactic is called "compassioneering."

But actually it's just a political adaptation of an age old dating strategy: impress the political left with a big expensive dinner at a fancy restaurant, and hope to get lucky later on in the voting booth.

Will it work? Not a chance. Let's face it, the conservatives have as much chance of winning over left-wingers as Don Cherry has of being named honorary captain of the Swedish national hockey team. After all, why should lefty types ever support conservatives? If they want socialism they will go for the real thing and vote NDP or maybe Liberal.

Meanwhile forgotten in this seamy little scenario are the conservative voters in this country, those Canadians who believe in things like smaller government, and free enterprise and who are working too hard paying their tax bills to waste any time marching with placards around Parliament Hill. Doesn't anybody care about them? Have they been jilted?

Maybe, for now. But watch. When the next election comes around conservative leaders, will return home, flowers in hand, thinking they can sweet talk those dependable conservative voters into taking them back.

And conservative voters would take them back if they were a bunch of Hillary Clinton clones who would put up with anything for the sake of power. But they aren't. Conservatives are more like a self-respecting wife: they have values, they have principles and they have little patience for those who would discard them.

That's why when the political types, tired of romancing the left, come tiptoing home in the middle of the night, conservative voters will be waiting for them, curlers in their hair and a rolling pin in their hands.

Left wing bullies undermine democracy

Yesterday a bunch of communist thugs stormed a meeting of the Toronto City Council budget committee.

They disrupted the proceedings with chants, they assaulted and  insulted police officers, they showed complete disdain for the democratic process.

So what does the media focus its attention on? The unruly protesters?

Nope.

What made headlines is that Doug Ford, the committee vice-chair, told the left wing goons to "get a job."

Now, for me the only problem with Ford's comment was its unoriginality, I mean "get a job" is so 1960s. Plus I doubt anyone would hire the placard waving idiots who invaded City Hall.

Yet, for the media the quip overshadowed the actual protests.

And this illustrates the problem with the media and just generally with the political establishment.

They will rant and rave over the "bullying" of the Harper Conservatives in Ottawa, but all too often they will look the over way when the Left uses tactics of intimidation, threats and even violence.

Perhaps this is because they sympathize with some of the radical left's goals, or perhaps its because violent protests makes for good copy and television.

Who knows?

All I do know is that violence and bullyboy tactics have no place in a free and democratic society.

The Economist on Harper

The Economist magazine has an interesting article on Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which you should check out.

(And I am not pushing the article because I happened to be quoted in it.)

Media Alert

I am scheduled to appear on the CHCH TV news program, Square Off, this afternoon at 5:30 PM.

Topic: Arenas and government waste.

Canada needs more Berniers

Check out my column in today's Ottawa Citizen in which I analyse the politics of controversial Conservative MP Maxime Bernier.

Here's why a Tory majority is in the cards

I have a column in this week's Ottawa Hill Times, in predicting a Conservative majority victory, if an election is held this spring.

It's reproduced below:

2011 to  mark true beginning of Harper Dynasty
At the beginning of the year I boldly predicted in the National Post that the federal Conservatives would trigger an election this spring.

Nothing has happened since then to cause me to change my mind. Indeed, if anything every day brings fresh evidence that a federal election is near.

This has emboldened me to climb a little further out onto my forecasting limb.

After much pondering, I have come to the conclusion that if we do have a federal election this spring, the result will be a Conservative majority.

Now I realize this forecast goes against conventional political wisdom.

Many pundits, using current public opinion polls as evidence, are arguing no party currently has enough voter support to win a majority.

Columnist Lorne Gunter has written, “Party standings would probably end the campaign at more or less their current levels. There is almost certainly no majority available to any party.”

And former Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella has declared, “Harper is still far from a majority.”

Really?

Gunter and Kinsella are forgetting one simple fact: Canadians are not yet politically engaged.

The Liberals recently released a poll, for instance, which showed only 15 percent of Canadians are even paying attention to federal politics. (By the way, that’s completely normal.

The average person rarely cares about the goings on in Ottawa. They would rather watch American Idol than The National. And who can blame them?)

But once an election is actually called Canadians will get focused on politics. They will start paying attention.

And what will these focused Canadians see when they start paying attention?

Well for one thing they will see a Prime Minister in Stephen Harper who is at the peak of his political powers.

A battle-hardened veteran of three national election campaigns and two leadership races,

Harper is a wily political tactician who leads a united, well-disciplined and wealthy party.

The Liberals, on the other hand, are in a sorry state.

Their leader, Michael Ignatieff, is intelligent but a rookie when it comes to running a national campaign. He has only one national race under his belt, a Liberal leadership contest, which he lost.

Nor has he shown any evidence that he is a good campaigner or that he possesses good political instincts or that he can come up with a message that will resonate with Canadians.

His party is also demoralized and cash-poor.

In short, in the next election Ignatieff will have a hard enough time rallying his own

Liberal base, let alone winning over undecided voters.

In other words, on paper at least, the Harper vs Ignatieff contest could be the biggest mismatch since General Custer took on Sitting Bull.

And let’s not forget the Conservatives only need a net gain of 12 seats to win a majority.

That’s absolutely doable.

All things considered, the Conservatives should gain seats in Danny Williams-less Newfoundand and will very likely win back the one seat they lost in Alberta in 2008.

But I’m guessing it’s in “voter-rich” Ontario where the Conservatives will really make their majority-guaranteeing electoral breakthrough.

Political conditions in that province are just right for major Tory gains.

Last year’s emotion-laden debate over the gun registry, for instance, should help the Conservatives immensely when it comes to taking some Opposition-held Ontario rural ridings.

And even Ontario’s urban ridings are ripe for the Tory taking.

Consider how the Conservatives handily won the recent by-election in Vaughn.

Plus the victory of conservative Rob Ford in the Toronto Mayor race shows even the up until now Tory-resistant GTA might be ready to turn blue.

Helping the Conservatives is that Ontarians are growing tired of Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty and thus will be in the mood to vote against any Liberal, provincially or federally.

For all these reasons a Conservative majority seems to be in the cards.

Mind you, the preceding analysis assumes the Tories will run a good, tactically sound campaign, and I concede that’s a mighty big assumption.

Never underestimate the ability of Conservatives to mess things up.

However, all things being equal, we should expect 2011 to mark the true beginning of the Harper dynasty.

How will Prime Minister Harper govern after he wins a majority?

That’s something even I can’t predict.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to be a guest on the Charles Adler Show today at 2:00 PM ET to discuss the curious case of Maxime Bernier.

Me on TV

In case you missed my appearance on Power Play this afternoon, you can catch it online here.

Topic: Maxime Bernier hero or villain?

War room run amok!

Check out my column which appears in today's Toronto Star, in which I dissect the recent Tory attack ads.

Media Alert

I am scheduled to do two interviews on the question of Maxime Bernier and Bill 101.

At around 5:00 PM ET, I will be on CTV's Power Play; then at 6:10 ET I will be on CFAX radio's Adam Stirling Show.

Why Harper should back Bernier

Quebec’s draconian anti-English language laws should embarrass every right-thinking Canadian.

Not only are they patently ridiculous – “language police” and their measuring the size of letters – but they clearly infringe on freedom of expression.

Simply put, in a truly free and democratic society, every individual should have the right to post signs in whatever language he or she chooses.

Yet, shamefully, Canada’s politicians, media and cultural elites all look the other way when it comes to the Quebec government's assault on language freedom.

Everyone it seems would rather pander to Quebec’s nationalistic sentiment, than stand up for what’s right.

One exception, however, is Conservative MP Maxime Bernier.

Bernier recently had the courage to say the obvious. Speaking on a radio program he said Quebec doesn’t need legislation to protect its language.

Later he elaborated on his blog:

“Yes, it’s important that Quebec remain a predominantly French-language society," wrote Bernier. "And ideally, everyone in Quebec should be able to speak French. But we should not try to reach this goal by restricting people’s rights and freedom of choice.

"French will survive if Quebecers cherish it and want to preserve it; it will flourish if Quebec becomes a freer, more dynamic and prosperous society; it will thrive if we make it an attractive language that newcomers want to learn and use. Not by imposing it and by preventing people from making their own decisions in matters that concern their personal lives.”

Seems like a reasonable and principled position.

Yet, Bernier's comments have caused an uproar both in and out of Quebec.

Quebec politicians – from both the Liberal and Parti Quebecois – have basically labeled him a traitor, which says more about their shaky understanding of freedom than it does about Bernier.

Even worse, however, is the appalling reaction to Bernier’s comments from the federal Opposition parties.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to come out and denounce Bernier.

According to an Ignatieff spokesman, “Distancing isn’t good enough. Mr. Harper needs to be clear in denouncing Bernier’s comments. Or is this the real Conservative position being floated out the back door by a convenient spokesperson?”

Meanwhile, the socialist NDP has a similar view.

NDP MP, Thomas Mulcair, declared, “By musing about getting rid of these protections, Mr. Bernier is playing with fire in an effort to increase his own popularity with the hard right wing of his own party and it's a shame. For over 30 years a large degree of language peace has been achieved by a law that gives the right to receive consumer information in French, the right to work in French and the ability to ensure that immigrants who choose to come to Quebec will learn French first and foremost.”

Note, neither the Liberals nor the NDP seem to care about the rights of Quebec’s English-speakers. They seem to be OK with the idea of using state power to coerce people into learning a language or with charging people with a crime for simply using one of Canada’s official languages.

Oh and by the way, Quebec’s language laws also discriminate against French-speaking Quebeckers, making it harder for them to learn English.

Yet, the Liberals and NDP would still sacrifice a fundamental individual freedom for “language peace.” If this wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable.

I hope the Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper has the courage to back up Bernier on this matter.

Certainly, I know Stephen Harper agrees with Bernier.

Indeed, while he was president of the National Citizens Coalition, Harper helped to finance court challenges to Quebec’s language laws, including a case that involved the owners of an antique store who were charged with a crime because the French and English lettering on their business sign were the same size!!

I guess Ignatieff and Muclair would see this as a heinous crime.

Of course, it would probably be expecting too much for the Conservatives to steadfastly back Bernier  on something so controversial.

But I hope, they at least allow him to continue being a strong voice for freedom.

We need all the voices we can get.

Happy Birthday Ronnie

Here's a column I wrote which appears in today's Calgary Herald.

******

Ronald Reagan's real achievement

Today marks the 100th anniversary of former American president Ronald Reagan's birth.

It's a time to remember Reagan and to celebrate his legacy.
And what a legacy.

Reagan helped turn a sour U.S. economy around, he helped win the Cold War, he assembled a winning political coalition, he restored American pride.

Many, in fact, consider him to be one of America's greatest all time presidents. (At least, conservatives view him that way.)

For me however, "The Gipper's" real success was not his economic policies or his foreign policy achievements.

For me it was how Reagan rebranded conservatism.

What do I mean?

Well before Reagan, conservatives were basically a dour lot.

And why not, everywhere they looked conservatism was losing ground.

Roosevelt's "New Deal" of the 1930s had ushered in the American welfare state, communism was on the march, taking over country after country, right-wing Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater got crushed in the 1964 election, the '60s Cultural Revolution was seemingly undermining America's morality and strength.

For conservatives, it was obvious -- the unstoppable trend toward "liberalism", was causing a slow, steady and inevitable American decline.

Hope was lost.

How could the U.S., with its "Age of Aquarius" generation ever hope to compete with the disciplined Soviets?

Pessimism reigned supreme.

Conservative thinkers were turning out books with uplifting titles like Suicide of the West.

Even those defying American liberalism did so defensively -- famed intellectual William F. Buckley, for instance, launched the conservative National Review saying the magazine would stand "athwart history, yelling stop."

Hardly a rallying cry.

By the 1970s things were only getting worse: the Watergate scandal, the military loss in Vietnam, Jimmy Carter spreading his own malaise in the White House.

Then at what seemed conservatism's darkest hour, came Reagan.

Reagan, the former Hollywood actor, the former Democrat, did things that were unusual for conservatives in those days.

He actually smiled! He used humour! He reached to Americans with a conservative message that was positive.

Rather than bemoaning America's "decline", Reagan made the case that America was still great.
America, he said, just had to remember that its greatness rested on freedom, including economic freedom.

If government was made smaller and less intrusive, he argued, it would free up the individual to create prosperity and growth. Government, in other words, wasn't part of the solution, it was part of the problem.

As Reagan himself put it, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Suddenly, thanks to Reagan, conservatism went from being a philosophy for Captain Killjoys to a force for optimism.

Reagan's brand of conservatism didn't look back, it looked forward; it promised better things and a brighter future.

Not surprisingly, it was an outlook that resonated with the American people.

Not only did it propel Reagan to the White House, but it changed the dynamics of the American political scene.

Reagan put liberalism on the defensive.

But more importantly, his message inspired not only his American countrymen, but conservatives around the globe.

That's a lesson today's conservative leaders should remember.

© Calgary Herald 2011

A true conservative speaks

Former US president Ronald Reagan was born 100 years ago. So I am posting one of his most famous speeches, just in case you want to know what a real conservative leader sounds like.