Back to business



Got some gaffe catching up to do. Forgive the uberpost.



First up, I heard this one quite some time ago, and brushed it off, but two readers (Tilting at Windmills' Kevin Brennan, and RevMod's own guest blogger Bear) have argued me up to "gaffe".

[Shirley] Chan ... has found herself in an unseemly spat with her NDP opponent Libby Davies in Vancouver East. When Ms. Chan criticized Ms. Davies for wasting taxpayers' money by flying her "girlfriend around" under the spousal-partner visiting program for MPs, Ms. Davies accused her of homophobic remarks.



Ms. Chan ... retorted: "I would say that she [Ms. Davies] is homophobic. She denies being a lesbian, but lives with a woman. And she doesn't call her her spouse; she calls her her partner."



Ms. Davies said she has never denied having a same-sex partner since their relationship began.

Shirley Chan is the same candidate that apologised to all but Tories for her volunteer's inappropriate e-mail slandering Tories. Now she's accusing her gay opponent of being a homophobe. There's a parallel here, I'm sure, but I'm not getting my finger quite on it. Nonetheless, SIG=1, PROM=1, total one point for Team Martin... sorry for the delay.



Another regular reader, Andrew Anderson of Bound by Gravity, helps add to the Liberal score, with this story about Liberal incumbent candidate John O'Reilly who published an ad in the local paper, supporting traditional marriage.



Now, let me take a moment here to try to straighten out something in my own head. "In favour of traditional marriage" is code for "opposed to same-sex marriage". I don't get that at all. The only people I know who can be described, literally, as "opposed to traditional marriage" are radical feminist types. Say, my ex-girlfriend, c. 1994, for instance - and she's since involved herself in a traditional marriage. I'm left wondering who we might be talking about at all. But in particular, gay couples who want to get married have to think pretty favourably toward "traditional marriage", given that they want to tie themselves to the same institution. My point? "In favour of traditional marriage" is nonsense.



Because of this, I've asked Andrew if he might find me a link to, or a scan of, the ad. But I'm relenting - it seems pretty clear that what's discussed all through this article is opposition to gay marriage, no matter if O'Reilly comes out and says it or not. And given that this is a cut point Martin was trying very hard to build between himself and the Conservatives, that's gaffe, baby.



But I'm going to allow myself a little retrospect on this... it was barely noticed by the national media. It should have cost the Liberals something, but it really didn't. Another SIG=1, PROM=1, total: one more point for Big Red.



Finally, the big one of the week, the one that defined the days since: the Conservatives, through various released and withdrawn press releases, suggest that Paul Martin is in favour of child porn.



Child porn? Is this all the Conservatives have? Is this all Harper can be certain his whole caucus will safely agree on? Or was this the Conservative attempt to make Harper's dissembling on s. 33 of the Charter during the debate look like it was actually on-topic? Did those debate comments get a big green "agree" spike from the focus group?



The Toronto Star (and thanks to reader Brent H. for that specific link) has compared the release to the "reptilian kitten-eater" gaffe during the Ontario provincial election, but I think that's unfair. After all, Ernie Eves didn't actually expect voters to believe that Dalton McGuinty dined on cat kabobs... it was a joke. While the Conservatives may have thought better of the release, and withdrew it (then released it again with a slightly less inflammitory headline, then withdrew it again), they weren't kidding when they wrote it. Either they're exceptionally cynical to use an issue like child porn this way, or they're incapable of believing that their political opponents are decent people. I don't know which of those I'd rather believe. Either possibility makes a Conservative minority goverment uncomfortable and unstable.



Scoring this one is trickier. Who's responsible? Can't really say. I'm going to call it "Central Campaign" and mark the PROM as a two. How important was the mistake? Well, because Harper hasn't withdrawn from anything except the initial headline, it's become a big deal - it's been the flashpoint that's defined the shape of the last few days. And yet, I'm not sure I can describe that all as "gaffe" - it may be that the Conservatives really thought they could score political points trying to position themselves as anti-child porn, that is was less "gaffe" and more "plan gone horribly wrong". The release-withdrawal-release-withdrawal (I'm concerned about the Google search hits that might produce) makes it gaffe, though. One SIG for each iteration of the release/withdrawal makes PROM=2, SIG=2, total of four more points for the party that loves its kids more than any other. Sure, they're racking up a score, but on the bright side, they're opposed to the sexual exploitation of children. So, you know, that's good.



Total for this post, two for the Liberals, four for the Conservatives.

Reciprocal Links



I've been going crazy adding reciprocal links to the column on the left the last few weeks. I appreciate your support, and your sending readers my way... I apologise that I haven't kept up with introducing you all individually. If I've missed you completely, let me know - e-mail address remians on the upper left.



I do want to point one out specifically right here. From the newest inbound link to me, pearls that are his eyes, comes the tag line of the year:

Instead of one big shot controlling all the media, now there's a thousand freaks blogging their worthless opinions.

Heh. Kathleen, from one of the thousand, word. But it's still a better arrangement.

Oh, my



The catch-up I've promised is still forthcoming, though I've been delayed by a request for IT services from the NDP. I may not know how I'm voting, but when this is all over, the NDP will still be my party... how could I say no? And yes, the cold is already significantly better - thanks for the good wishes.



But in the meantime, via the thoughtful and sensible Calgary Grit, I've discovered Conservative Canadian. S/He writes a blog that I'm tempted to just ignore, but I can't, because I fear the thinking in it is representative of too much of the rank-and-file of the new Conservative party.

As for health care, it has to be said once and for all that no one, stress NO ONE, is advocating a two-tier system. Two-tier, as the name implies, would mean that the public sector would no longer offer certain services that were shifted to private clinics. We are merely talking about private management and delivery of facilities and services UNDER the umbrella of the public health care system. And if someone has enough money and needs treatment badly enough, he or she should be free to select from a number of different options: wait in the public sector for 18 months or longer to have that life-saving surgery or turn to a private provider.



This is a fundamental right of choice relative to the integrity of one's body and person, but the Liberals want to deny us this fundamental right. This is worse than China or the Soviet Union.

I think I might have a different understanding of two-tier. A two-teir system in my world is one that gives opportunities for queue-jumping to those who "ha[ve]enough money and need[] treatment badly enough".



I'll let the next one speak for itself:

Canada already has too many illiterate and anti-social immigrants that should have never been brought in. They are a burden on our health-care system: even now, immigrants and refugees can bring in next-of-kin, such as parents, who are too old to learn English. They will never pay a single penny in taxes, yet they are the majority of patients lining up at emergency rooms.



.....



I know a coffee shop in Toronto that is overrun by Sri Lankans around the clock. They play cards all day long (consuming next to nothing). Frequently, you will find 20, sometimes 40, of them inside the coffee shop. Paying customers have no way of sitting down and enjoying a quiet cup of coffee.



These people have clearly no jobs to go to; otherwise, they could not sit in a coffee shop 24/7. Sometimes, I would see them shuffle and trade goods from the trunks of their cars right in front of the coffee shop.



Then, one day one of these guys told me that he had bought himself a farm north of Toronto - $160,000 in CASH! With no job and spending all his waking hours at the coffee shop, where does all that money come from?



These are the kinds of criminal and parasitic elements that we, as taxpayers, have to support - thanks to the Liberals. And now the NDP wants to make things even worse for CANADIANS.

Ay-ya!



Let me get to the point of all this. I'm not trying to set up in this one blogger a straw man that poor Stephen Harper, who I think is as likely to produce an "ay-ya" at this as readily as I do, has to answer for.



My point is that the Conservative Party has yet to set down any grass-roots policy that Canadians can count on. Given the membership of the party, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least be concerned that the first policy convention of the new party will be attended by a convention hall filled with "Conservative Canadian"s ready to copy out the Reform Party policy book c. 1988, and call it Conservative Party policy. If that's the vision of the country represented by a Conservative vote this time around, I don't think they'll find many takers east of Manitoba.



I'm not saying the Conservatives WILL go down this road. I'm saying they MIGHT. I'm saying that we can't know what we might be getting out of a Conservative government. That's not the Conservatives fault, entirely - both parties headed toward a winter merger and Spring election eyes wide open about what it was going to mean - but I'd feel a lot better waiting at least another year for the new party to sort itself out before I'd be ready to see Harper handed the reins of power.



In the meantime, though, one more thing I'd like to draw from "Conservative Canadian"'s blog. It's a parade of ad hominem attacks, because they never get tired. Cue the circus music:

People don't like criminals, crooks, liars, cheaters, which are all synonymous to "Liberal".



....



Anyone who still considers voting Liberal should have his head examined.



....



Anyone who still votes Liberal is a moron, as has been pointed out by many writers and journalists.



....



Paul Martin, as everyone can see now, is a fumbling, crooked and lying idiot. You'd have to be just as fumbling, crooked and idiotic to vote Liberal on June 28.



....



Have you ever seen a Liberal that isn't a liar? I sure haven't.



....



...Liberals are liars and con-artists.

Hey, that was fun! Let's take that ride again!



And just in case you think I'm picking on this writer unfairly, read this post, and then this one, and then tell me so.

The homestretch



There's one week to election day, and it's anyone's game. By "anyone", of course, I mean the Liberals or Conservatives.



I have a couple of "small-town gaffes" to catch up on, and I'd like to discuss the Conservative accusation that voting Liberal is to be objectively pro-child porn. I also have to report back on my e-mail solicitations for information. But I'm not sure I can give you the cohesive arguments you deserve, because I'm flying high on cold medication.



Whee!

Ralph Klein enters federal politics



I was trying to come up with some pun combining Ralph being on the wagon and my reading his tea leaves, but it just didn't work out, so the pithy little joke that normally appears about here, or perhaps in the title, will be taking the morning off. Adapt.



Klein is tossing a grenade into the federal election race with his announcement that he'll release the Alberta government's new health care plan, two days after the election. It's a grenade because Klein has previously made it abundantly clear he's prepared to ignore the boundaries of the Canada Health Act. For those of you who weren't following this in February when this was first floated as a trial balloon, let me review. The Canada Health Act is only enforced with federal dollars and the threat of witholding some or all of those dollars. As the fed has reduced its share of the bill over the last decade, their ability to enforce the Canada Health Act has likewise been reduced.



Meantime, here in Alberta, the provincial debt is paid, yet the government continues to run huge surpluses. They need something to spend money on. Further, any time Albertans can spend money to prove our independence and smack Ottawa around a little, well, many Albertans consider that money well-spent. In short, the provincial government doesn't care if the fed pulls away money for health care. Alberta can easily cover the shortfall. The Federal government cannot defend the Canada Health Act in Alberta with dollars, unless it's ready to come up with a lot more (a LOT more) for the system to (in turn) deny to Alberta.



So, back to the here and now. What is Klein trying to do? He must know this is going to become an issue in the federal election. It has the potential to turn the ballot question (that is, the question undecided voters ask themselves while they stand in the booth) back to health care, which I suspect would thrill Liberals. Is Klein doing this to give the Liberals a boost?



I don't think that's impossible. He seems to genuinely like Martin, and Klein's an old-timey Liberal at heart (albeit one who knows how to weild the social conservatives in his caucus without letting them take over). Perhaps most importantly, there's more political mileage to be had from bashing a Liberal federal government then there would be bashing a Conservative government.



Martin is posturing about staring Klein in the eye, about taking action. Harper is so far strangely silent, though I'm sure that won't last. I've e-mailed all three parties with a variation of this question (this is the Liberal version):

So, other than the manly staring contest the Prime Minister is promising, how are the Liberals planning to enforce the Canada Health Act if the Alberta government is indifferent to the money attached? The last time Alberta decided to flaunt the Act, with extra billing (was that the eighties? Some time ago), the fed was able to enforce by witholding medicare transfers. But Klein made it really clear in February that those transfers are too tiny, and Alberta can live without them.



Please refrain from telling me what the other parties will do - I'll let them tell me themselves, thanks.

(I should mention that I introduced my Conservative request with a bit of a suck-up around my appreciation for Harper's health care candidness. I don't know if that makes it more or less likely I'll get an answer. I should also mention that the last caveat went to all three parties - we'll see if they are able to follow that instruction.)



My experiment with contacting the local candidates was a bust - I recieved one very thoughtful response, which I'll post this weekend, but I got silence from the other three. We'll see if the central campaigns do any better.



Update: I'm listening to Deb Grey on the radio right this minute, and the question was posed: if Alberta violates the CHA, will Conservatives enforce it? "Well, there's a lot of money trouble in the system, and the Liberals are to be blamed for that." Yes, but will the Conservatives enforce the CHA? "You know, Paul Martin went to a private clinic just a few weeks ago." Yes, but will a Conservative government enforce the CHA? "We want to work with the provinces....."



Holy crap. And by that, I mean, holy crap. My e-mail question might have assumed too much of the Conservative Party. For the first time, I'm actually very concerned about the damage a Conservative government could do.

Hurry and tell 2002!



I was watching NBC Detroit last night. I have my reasons. They involve crappy programming - shhhh.



A teaser came up for the late-night newscast. "Was Saddam behind the 9/11 attacks? The 9/11 commission has released some disturbing information, and you'll be shocked to hear what they've found."



Seriously? On June 16, 2004, there was someone who was "shocked" by the news that Saddam Hussien was not responsible for 9/11? "Honey, you'll never believe this! Bin Laden? Who's this bin Laden guy?"



People are messed up.

The "Debate"



Last night's debate format gave the leaders lots of opportunities to clarify their positions, to pose questions, and to respond to accusations. It's too bad that they instead chose to reiterate talking points, without really paying any attention to the words of the others.



Nonetheless, the most telling moments came when they let themselves out of the bubbles their handlers put them in (or at least, appeared to do so).



Harper's best moment, I thought, was when he turned into policy-wonk guy when he went on a bit of a riff about health-care privatization. He was debating with Layton at the time, and here's what I recall as the gist of the conversation:

Harper: My people have told me not to say any of this, but there's already plenty of private involvement in the public health system, and if it doesn't interfere with equality of access, what's the problem?



Layton: The SomeGuy report has examined that question, and it's so much more expensive to deliver that way.

Hey, look. It's a policy discussion! They're talking about ideas!

Layton (continuing): Mr. Harper, your only goal is to assist your corporate friends.

Well, so much for that.

(continuing) Harper: Gray. Gray gray. Gray gray gray, gray gray.



Layton: Black! Black white! White white black black, white black!

If, all evening, all the leaders had been as forthcoming as Harper was in that exchange, voters might have been able to discover some real differences and make some real decisions. Can you imagine, the day after a national leaders' debate, the major media not asking who won and lost, but testing the veracity of various claims and counterclaims? I know - it's a crazy dream.



Martin spent the evening answering questions of his own invention, occasionally getting frustrated that he wasn't being given the room to answer said imaginary questions. Again, I'll paraphrase:

Layton: If you're such a hero on gay marriage rights, why didn't you bring legislation instead of leaving the reference with the courts and hiding behind the Charter?



Martin: Hiding behind the Charter? I stand behind the Charter. It's the greatest piece of legislation in the whole wide world! Rights are rights are rights, and it's too bad Mr. Harper doesn't understand that.



Don: Wha?

And this sort of ignoring of the questions went on all night --- Harper and Martin were both doing it, but Martin was the king. And it combined very poorly with the frustrated face he would make when he wasn't given the chance to jump in to give his non-answer to a question, while the poser would go on posing and posing (which I wrote about more briefly last night). Harper at least had the good sense to stay out of the way when he wasn't being pressed for his non-answers.



Layton? I reviewed him a bit yesterday. He looked too overmanaged, and he seemed incapable of stepping outside of his talking points. He had some excellent questions, but never let his opponents answer for good or ill. And with the exception of the Duceppe Clarity Act exchange, he was rarely forced to work from the defensive. During the exchange on privatization of health, I would have been really happy to hear Harper pose the following:

(In Don's imagination, as my mind drifts from another non-conversation) Harper: If you're so dead-set against any privatization in the health system, will you be closing the network of private abortion clinics across the country? How do you think that might impact a woman's right to choose?

Harper might have been wise not to pose that, actually, because it might have made Layton appear animated for a moment.



Finally, Duceppe. What can I say? He was relaxed, he was frank, he asked some tough questions and then gave Martin (practically always Martin) the space to answer some other, imaginary question. Then he'd ask the real question again. He wouldn't yell it through Martin's answer, he'd just ask it again. Very effective. When he was under attack, he came clean, even though it moved away from the BQ strategy:

Duceppe: Yeah, I'm a seperatist. So are lots of Quebecers. That's not going to change, Mr. Harper. (Don's imagination takes over again.) At least we don't talk in code about "firewalls". Maybe someone needs to apply the Clarity Act rules to that whole bit.

It wasn't a good debate. That's too bad, because I think there are many real differences among the parties. Here I am again, at the same point I find myself after so many of these posts: why can't Canada have an honest and open discussion of ideas and policy, and let voters choose after hearing that discussion? Why do the parties seem so afraid of that conversation?

Today again, we begin with serious matters



Let me extend my deepest condolences to the Kinsella family on the loss of their grandfather, father, and husband Dr. T. Douglas Kinsella. If you aren't moved by Warren's essay about his father, you have a heart of stone.

"Did your advisors tell you to talk all the time?"



I fully expect someone to ask me to gaffe that question up, and if the media play it over and over as the "Paul Martin is arrogant" clip, I might have to. But he was on the money. Now that it's too late, here's a word of advice for Layton, and to a lesser extent, to Martin and Harper as well (though Duceppe did not make this mistake at all):



When you ask an incisive, dangerous, time-bomb of a question, the only way it scores any points with the electorate is if you give the responder some rope to hang himself with. If you ask a question and then talk right over the answer, you look insincere, while the voter is left with the impression that your opponent might have answered the question, if only you'd afforded him the opportunity.

Does anyone know what time it is?



(This entry posted by occasional RevMod guest-host, Bear)



Being in Vancouver, I have a huge issue concerning the debates, particularly the schedule. In Atlantic Canada, Ontario and Quebec, 8:00 - 9:00 PM is prime time. On the Prairies, the debates either replace or follow the dinner hour newcasts.



Here in British Columbia, the province which according to the polls, may determine who forms a government, and features a tight three-way race, the debates air at 5:00 PM. No one in the Lower Mainland(where over half of B.C.'s population lives)gets home from work at 5:00 PM, especially if they're picking up the kids and/or running a couple of errands.



People in Vancouver might be interested in seeing the debate to help make up their minds, but they're not going to duck out of work early, nor are they going to set their VCRs. What's puzzling is that none of the networks are offering a repeat or tape-delayed broadcast for the west coast. Why not? Sportsnet Pacific does it all the time when the Canucks play on the East Coast, and isn't this a much more important game to be watching?

French-language debate tonight



Let's talk about what the four leaders need to accomplish tonight:



Stephen Harper: Speak French. Don't say anything stupid on socail issues. You're mostly talking to a French-speaking audience outside of Quebec tonight... stress issues of concern in Manitoba or New Brunswick. Say "adscam" a lot, hoping to get Quebecers to cast ballots against the Liberals. It would be too much to hope they'll vote for you this time around.



Jack Layton: Speak French. Say "Pierre Ducasse" a lot. Find a way to reiterate your anti-Clarity Act beliefs without saying you'll tear it up. For a guide on how to do that, listen to Harper on gay marriage.



Gilles Duceppe: Speak French. Say "adscam" a lot.



Paul Martin: Speak French. Talk a lot about the Conservative social "hidden agenda". Then note that the Liberals are the only alternative government, and that the BQ, even opposing the social conservative agenda, will enable it by letting the Conservatives at the levers of power.



It sounds nonsensical, I know, but if Harper (whoops) or Martin (score!) say anything that makes the calculation "Conservative = social conservative" stick in the heads of francophone voters, it will be the BQ who gets to pay the price. Otherwise, everyone sleepwalks through this baby with no expectation of moving many voters, wanting to save their best "gotcha" moments for the battle in the much more volatile English-speaking seats.

Catching up on the e-mail



I don't know how I missed this one. Once again, I'm in the debt of blogger extrodinare James Bow, and once again, it links back to the Globe and Mail:

The latest party controversy hit Wednesday when Frank Luellau, a Conservative candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga, told The Globe and Mail that he supports "the biblical teaching that (homosexuality) is not a natural kind of relationship."



Mr. Luellau also defended the policy of his former organization, the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, to fire, or not hire, any employee or volunteer found to be in a homosexual relationship.

No explanation necessary, at this point. Conservative nobody says something pretty offensive and stupid to slow down the momentum of big blue. PROM:1 * SIG:2 = another two points for Harper's Heroes.

They never listen



I gave Stephen Harper some very good options, I thought, to manage the Iraq issue. I missed some equally good ones, I think. But Harper has taken one I never would have selected: dissemble some more.

"I continue to believe if the allies had acted in a concerted manner to put on [Mr. Hussein] that kind of pressure, we would have been able to avoid a war, but we didn't do that . . .," the Conservative Leader told a small group of supporters at a rally in Barrie, Ont.

The Globe is going too far with their portrayal of this statement -

The war in Iraq could have been avoided had Canadian soldiers been sent in earlier to scare Saddam Hussein, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says. [Overstate much, Globe writer? - Don]



...



This is a departure from his statement in April of 2003, when he said: "We should have been there, shoulder to shoulder with our allies." [A "departure"? Because the statement now, and what he said then, don't seem to be mutually exclusive, really. - Don]

- and yet, whom among us is convinced that Stephen Harper really believes this? War could have been prevented if only most western nations had lined up behind the Americans. Saddam would have immediately complied with the UN resolution to the White House's satisfaction. He would have turned over his weapons of mass destruction. Oh, wait - he didn't have any! Is there any chance that answer would have satisfied Shrub and his PNAC advisors? No, there wasn't. No Canadian or worldwide troops could have prevented the war, because the American government had no intention of letting it be prevented. And Stephen Harper the policy wonk is no fool - he knows all this as well or better than I do.



Stephen, it's time to say you wanted to commit troops, but you were wrong, or working from the same incorrect assumptions everyone else was. Or it's time to say you wanted to commit troops, and you stand by that because it was the right thing to do for the sake of the people of Iraq. You need to pick a strong spot to defend, and then hold your position. Keep picking undefendable spots, and you'll be forever in retreat.



(Thanks to James Bow for the link to the Globe story)

Another local race



Tonight, I wrote my local candidates from the four main parties, asking them a question I hope will help me along my voting decision. I'll spare you some of the note's preamble, but include the part that explains the reasoning behind my question. I think it's a good one that should be put to candidates in closer races than Crowfoot's.

I think that the best work done by Parliament tends to be done at committee level, where MPs with divergent philosophies and perspectives are only effective when they step beyond party doctrine and seek out solutions to pressing problems as colleagues.



It's also increasingly possible that there may be a minority government, which would make effective governing impossible without an ability to look beyond a Member's own caucus.



With those two things in mind, my question is this: what idea have you seen in an opposing party's platform, or have you heard expressed by a political opponent during this campaign, which made you think "Aha - what a neat idea," or "I wish my party had thought of that," or "There's an idea to crib when we form a government"?

Once I have some answers, I'll pass them along.

Gaffe roundup



It's been a couple of eventful days since I seriously tried to catch up on the Gaffe-o-Meter. Honestly, had I written an entry, I'm sure I would have predicted much lower scores... I was worried there wouldn't be enough gaffe activity to make the race interesting. What was I thinking? To paraphrase HL Mencken, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Canadian candidate.



The Conservatives are more than well-represented in that by Cheryl Gallant. I alluded a few posts ago to her recently quoted comparison between Canadian abortions and the beheading of Nick Berg. Not so smart, but no points - nor for Jason Kenney who compares abortion to child abuse and slavery. The quotes came, as pointed out by the extremely sharp-eyed Andrew, before the writ period. Still, you really can't blame the Liberals for folding the comments into their larger strategy: convincing Canadians that the Conservatives are extremists. As I've illustrated the last several posts, it's certainly working on me.



(Andrew has an excellent post on why social issues shouldn't matter this election. I'm pretty sure I don't agree, but I'll work on that thought more over the weekend and keep you posted.)



Undermining Martin's strategy, we have Tom Wappel and Roger Gallaway noting that not all Liberals are pro-choice, and that perhaps there isn't really much of a gulf between Liberals and Conservatives on social issues. It's always good to contradict your leader on wedge issues, Tom, and Roger. Why do candidates this election have so much trouble with the concept of keeping their yaps shut? Luckily, it's barely a story, but they're still getting PROM=1*SIG=2 = 2 gaffe points. Each, because you're both idiots. Four more for the Liberals. Also for the Liberals, Carolyn Parrish says her party is running a crappy campaign. Because, duh. Since she's stating the universally-known obvious, I can't gaffe this up, even if she did change her mind later. Stories about "how's the campaign going?" are kind of like stories about polls. Who cares? Canadians have important things to decide, and the rest is sideshow. This site is all sideshow, by the way.



Column three, the BQ. The BQ continues to quietly run a solid campaign watching the Liberals hang themselves. No gaffe points for the man in the funny hat. Yet. At all. I think he learned his lesson from the funny hat.



Finally, the NDP. Malcolm Azania's internet comments have been oft-discussed of late, but coming as they did over a decade before the writ period, I can't score them. I'm also not forgiving the remarks, but at the same time, I've had those weird left-wing conversations about all white people being racist until we reject the social structures like money that blah blah blah jeepers was I ever that dumb? Sure I was, because I was twenty-three and surrounded by left-wingers at college and we were all chewing up and playing with Big Ideas. I wouldn't want much of what I thought back then held against me, either.



(Is anyone else listening to Al Rae's three-day-a-week comedy election roundup at 11:45 on CBC AM? "The NDP's leader is calling people 'brother', his candidates are discussing the relationship between blacks and Jews, and Ed Broadbent is doing rap. How long before Jack Layton is surrounded by a posse of Nation of Islam bodyguards?" Hee!)

Dr. T. Douglas Kinsella



First today, the serious - regular readers of Warren Kinsella (and if you aren't, why not?) know he's been facing a medical crisis in his family. Let me add my public positive wishes for his father, and pass on Warren's request for prayer.

Gaffe-o-meter requires update



Technical problems originate with your too-busy host. Please stand by.

Perhaps the line I drew wasn't completely clear



Why do I draw a line between criticism of C-250, particularly when the criticism includes words like "pedophilia", and homophobia? Perhaps it's the months of debate that led up to the passing of C-250, when groups that reasonalble people don't want to be associated with were making those same arguments.



I first heard of C-250 in January, 2003, when I received an e-mail from an online backgammon opponent. All the opponent knew about me was that I was Canadian. Now it may have been shotgun strategy (contact enough people, and some will agree), but in my experience, e-mails like this get distributed when it's assumed there would be general agreement ("We hate high gas prices!" "Hey, me too!"). The original e-mail and my somewhat moderated response is here, and my eventual response is here. Long story short, C-250 added sexual orientation to the protections of s.318 of the Criminal Code, which says that if you promote genocide - not "hate", genocide - against an identifiable group, you can be charged, with the permission of the Attorney General. Who will, quite naturally, rush to the defense of NAMBLA through jailing religious figures for daring to be critical, because that wouldn't be political suicide at all, no ma'am. Go to the second link, where I've quoted the entire CC section, and decide for yourself.



Since the bill passed, many of the groups have taken down their pages (and I saw some interesting ones when I was first researching, a year and a half ago). There are still a few treats out there. The Christian Heritage Party was a big critic of C-250.

Let me assure you, there are some of us who would rather go to jail than stop protecting our children by telling the truth! The purpose of C-250 is to kill free and honest discussion of one of the most important issues of our time. The homosexualization of our society is one of the most important issues of our time because it's really about adults gaining sexual access to children.

You might want to read about poor Larry Spencer, victim of the homosexualist agenda. Not that the CHP really believes the whole Protocols of the Elders of Stonewall stuff that Jack Chick alluded to in my earlier post. It's not so much a conspiracy, they say.

A more accurate description might be "a monolithic conformity of ideas" among politicians, educators, jurists and the media.

I could go on, but you can find your own fun through a google search for "c-250". Don't forget to check the wayback machine for any pages that don't seem to be as inflamitory as you expect... lots have been changed since the legislation passed.



Okay, but perhaps Gallant wasn't trying to draw this same line. And even if she was, she's one MP. Most of the Conservative candidates are likely to be more in line with Harper. Aren't they?.

Although the legislation passed under the current Liberal government, the issue is by no means dead. In fact, a meeting called "Scrap Bill C-250 Campaign" will take place tomorrow in Alberta. Pro-family leaders such as Ted Byfield, Rev. Tristan Emmanuel, and Professor Ted Morton, will address the meeting, as will two Conservative MPs, Rob Anders and Myron Thompson.



.....



The Conservative Party's attempt to bury the issue is perplexing to many supporters given that 60 of the 61 Alliance members at the time of the Sept. 17, 2003 passage of C-250 voted against it. The other party to the recent merger, the Progressive Conservative Party, had 7 members vote against and 7 vote for the bill, with one more absent. The two PC MPs who most strongly agreed with the Liberal/NDP sponsored bill, Joe Clark and Scott Brison, both rejected the merger of the parties, with Brison joining the Liberals and Clark retiring from politics. With their combined votes overwhelmingly against the bill some observers say that it would be expected the CPC would revisit the C-250 change which they strenuously opposed as a danger to free speech and freedom of religion. [Emphasis mine]

Do I need to keep going? How about "ask your boyfriend" Gallant herself? Perhaps I'll save that for another post.



Update: No link yet this morning, but if you ask me, Gallant's abortion statements this morning suggest she's trying to get kicked off the campaign. Or taking instructions from the "lifesite" people I linked above. Or trying to get the Conservative Party's asses kicked. More on that, including gaffe points, later.

It's been a wild ride



If you had told me three months ago the Flames were going to make the playoffs, I would have called you optimistic. If you had told me two months ago that they were going to be in game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, I would have called you delusional.



It's tough to see the team end this ride on a loss, but I don't think Calgary fans have any reason to be disappointed. The Flames have been punching well above their weight for two months now. Congratulations to them.



As heartbreaking as it was to watch, I can smile for Dave Andrechuk winning his first Stanley Cup after twenty-odd years of hard-working hockey, and be happy for Conn Smythe winner Brad Richards, who had a whole province behind him, cheering against "Canada's Team".



I might be a little bitter toward the city of Tampa, though. I can't abide the Stanley Cup living in a city that has never seen naturally-occuring ice.

Is it time to start quoting John Crosbie again, yet?



I'm not a reporter of poll results. In fact I'm rarely even a reader of poll results. When I ran in the provincial election as an NDP candidate in rural southern Alberta, reporters occasionally inquired how I evaluated my chances. "My latest polling data says I'm running even with the Tory," I'd tell them, "but my family might not be a large enough sample."



I still think that's pretty damn funny. I digress.



People who are more fascinated that I am with polling data are starting to see a trend that suggests the strong possibility of the Conservatives getting the most seats. I'm sure the data is correct, but I still think the analysis lacks one vital but hard-to-quantify variable: the surprising thickheadedness of so many Conservate candidates who are not named Stephen Harper.



The latest bright star in the Conservative heaven is Cheryl Gallant, MP and candidate in Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke. Ms Gallant scored PROM=1 * SIG=3 (the first three-point SIG of the game) for equating homosexuality and pedophila, in her discussion of Bill C-250.

In an interview with CTV News, Ottawa-area MP Cheryl Gallant said she opposed the new law, that was recently amended to include sexual orientation as one of the protected groups.



"The danger in having sexual orientation just listed, that encompasses, for example, pedophiles," Gallant said.

This gets better and better, too. Gallant says "I believe that the caucus as a whole would like to see it repealed." Now, I don't know if that's true, but it's a pretty clear indication that she's not alone on this. Tough to believe that Scott Brison didn't think he'd feel comfortable in that caucus, eh?



And it just gets better and better - John Reynolds' reaction:

"I'm the House leader and I've seen no line-up of letters in my office asking us to repeal that law," Reynolds told CTV News. "It's a bill that passed the House of Commons."



"She'll have every right to bring that up with a new caucus in Ottawa - which will be greater in numbers. But it's certainly not something that is going to get us off an agenda."

"Oh, and also? We don't even know what she's talking about. Protect pedophiles? From what - people being critical of pedophila? Yeah, the Court's really going to read that shit in to C-250." No, wait. Reynolds didn't say any of that. He said "it's not a priority," not "she's wrong in so many ways." Had he said something like the latter, my undecided vote might have had a chance to become a Conservative vote. Now, virtually none.



I've said before that there are good reasons, some of which I'm sympathetic toward, for opposing hate speech laws. Those reasons tend to revolve around free speech and civil liberty. That's not the argument Ms Gallant formed here. I don't think you have to read too deeply between the lines to see that what she really means is something more along these lines:

[W]ith hardly any opposition, the sodomites and their aggressive gay machine became a force to control politicians, judges, the media and finally our school systems. Their weapon was a single word, tolerance, and all opponents were put to flight.



..........



Satan has the backing of the courts, trying to shut the mouths of God-fearing pastors, who still have the courage to preach about it from the book of Romans, who show what God thinks of homosexuality and what He did to Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe the time will soon come when godless judges will close churches that call being gay a sin.

Here's the question someone needs to ask Ms Gallant: do you agree or disagree with the above passage? What parts do you dispute?



Anyway, I've headed very far down this road, trying to avoid having a "what did she really mean" argument like we had around abortion councilling. This is so much clearer. If you don't think I'm right, feel encouraged to point me to one single moment in Gallant's public life when she showed any indication putting her homophobia in question.



Let's head back to my initial point. What to know why the Conservatives will not be allowed anywhere near the reins of power? The Canadian public wants to punish the Liberals, but they don't want Canada to radically change. Stephen Harper knows it, and has spent the campaign trying to sell his party as Liberal Lite - "Same great taste, now with 75% less corruption!" His candidates don't understand this strategy, because they keep opening their yaps on these issues. I think this gaffe, the Cheryl Gallant gaffe, might be the break point. I think the only choice right now is for Harper to remove her as a candidate before the shitstorm really takes hold. I keep saying Harper can't afford more of these errors. I'm ready now to say that Harper can't afford this one. It's catching on slowly because it happened over the weekend, up against D-Day ceremonies and high-profile hockey games, but it will be noticed. I think if the Liberals are smart they'll use this as a wedge issue to get the angry-at-the-Liberal-party centrists back.



I'll answer my title question. Yes, it's time to quote John Crosbie. I've used this before, but with Harper in the driver's seat, it seems more appropriate than ever to this election:



"It's the 90% of Reformers that give the other 10% a bad name."

I didn't include him in the Gaffe-o-Meter, either... sue me



Green Party leader Jim Harris writes a little something for the election blog today. It's an interesting read, and represents a voice that needs to be heard in this campaign. It's surrounded by much editorializing in the comments and contributor blogs about the "unfairness" of excluding him from the televised leaders' debates.



Boo-frickin'-hoo.



Anyone rememeber the National Party? They polled pretty well, too, but they disappeared in a big hurry, and it wasn't because Mel Hurtig wasn't at the debate.



I really don't think we should rely on poll data to determine who gets invited and who doesn't. The Reform Party went out there and won a by-election on the ground before they expected to be taken seriously on the national stage. Taking a different approach, the Greens are running their leader up against Jack Layton in TO-Danforth. Why don't they just send out a press release saying they have no intention of winning a single seat?



Nominating three-hundred and eight candidates is an impressive feat. Electing just one would be so much more so.

Welcome aboard



To those of you who managed to find me after I spoke almost a whole sentence about this blog on Global National this evening, happy to have you. I'm the guy in the article blogging the "lighter side" of the election. I'm here all week - try the veal.



If you're looking for the other two blogs mentioned in the article, Darren Barefoot is found here, and blogscanada is here. But chances are, you missed it completely, because, you know... hockey.

Harper's out of the bubble; Liberal campaign worker is out of his mind



I've been very critical of Jack Layton on this page in the past days, but give the man full props - he answers questions, he speaks his mind, and he generally lets voters know what they'll be getting if they vote NDP. In the meantime, Stephen Harper has spent the campaign thus far tightly on-message, waiting for the Liberals to helpfully self-destruct. Corruption, waste, graft, blah, blah, complainycakes. It hasn't given the voters much of a sense of what they might be voting for, only what they're voting against. Until today.



Merrifield's gaffe on Tuesday forced Harper to take questions responding to the growing sense that the new Conservatives have more in common with their Reform and Alliance predessors than they want to let on.

Harper repeated his comments from Wednesday that Parliament would define marriage and that he expected the Supreme Court would not interfere.



.......



"I believe the court will defer to Parliament's judgment," said Harper, who supports the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.



Harper also reiterated past comments that his government would not introduce abortion legislation but that he would allow a free vote on the issue if an MP introduced a private member's bill.

The former, the position on same-sex marriage, I could have written off as throwing a bone to the social conservatives, without actually governing as one. Regular readers know I'm in favour of same-sex marriage, and wouldn't be happy about this, but it would only mean delay before those marriages are recognized.



But to the latter, that's more disconcerting. I suppose a private-members bill might insist on counselling. It might mean a wait period. It might mean all sorts of means, big or small, designed to interfere with access to abortion. I don't want to be part of the scaremongering chorus, led by Paul Martin, that says Harper is dangerous. But an open-ended statement like this is not doing a lot to dissuade me.



Speaking of the scaremongering chorus, Bear has pointed me to a story from the Lower Mainland:

Vancouver East Liberal candidate Shirley Chan has accepted the resignation of one of her communications officials because of an e-mail she calls "inappropriate, insensitive and indefensible."



Chan says Jon Loewen had sent out an e-mail inviting 50 friends to go to a local bar for a campaign event.



He wrote that he liked going to the bar to get "retarded."



He said everyone was welcome, even Conservatives - who, he wrote, could sit in the corner and hate gays, immigrants, social programs and anything reasonable.



Chan says Loewen offered his resignation and it was accepted.



"I will apologize to persons with disabilities, I will apologize to any immigrant groups who may feel they have been slandered," she says.

Before you ask, I'm not going to score any gaffe points for this - this is a minor official in a local campaign, who was likely working one too many long days. I'm certain he's feeling a little sheepish about this.



Most interesting in this story was Chan's response, which I'm almost considering scoring as a gaffe of ommision. Quick quiz - who was the most slandered by that e-mail? Who did Chan neglect to apologise to, in her moment of contrition? That's right - Tories. Whoops!

Mmmm... Maple!



Some headlines defy elaboration. From the CBC:



Canadian lab testing maple syrup-flavoured cigarettes



Come for the flavour - stay for the addictive carcinogens! Huh... I guess I was able to elaborate after all.

Attack squads



I'm going to direct you to James Bow, for his incisive response to perhaps the most disappointing development of this campaign - Liberals seeking out yelling matches with their political opponents.



Does this serve any purpose? Does this help citizens decide how best to govern themselves? This is a sideshow, and not a helpful one - this tactic lacks any useful purpose. But I'm betting we've seen the last of it.



Am I the only one who finds this election endlessly fascinating, if a little thin on policy?



Update Thursday early am: It doesn't fit my traditional image of gaffe (saying something, true or not, that you really didn't want the public to hear, if only you'd given it five minutes of thought), so it didn't occur to me to score it. But I think Don, in my comments, is right - this was widely criticized as just kinda stupid, and that makes it kind of a gaffe. Her Majesty's Loyal Government scores PROM=2 (cabinet ministers) * SIG=1 (high-profile, but probably not very vote-affecting, because it's a tactic, not an issue) = two gaffe points.



Thanks also to alert reader Joe, who found the new and improved Layton picture for the Gaffe-o-Meter. Not as space-alienesque, but goofier regardless. Now someone find me a decent Harper.

Update your scorecards



The Conservatives managed another gaffe today, and this one feels easy to score. A four-pointer, in fact.

Mr. Merrifield [Health critic, and Conservative candidate for Yellowhead] said that women considering terminating their pregnancies should have third-party, independent counselling prior to undergoing the procedures, saying it would be "valuable" to women who may only be seeing one side of the issue. He did not specify whether counselling should be done by a doctor.

Harper needs to keep a lid on these people. I've said it before - the one thing that will have the Conservative campaign doing a mean impression of the Titanic is any appearance of being the old Reform Party. I'm not convinced Merrifield's comments are as over-the-top as all that, but any smell of legislation on abortion opens the door to criticism that however moderate Harper appears to be, he's surrounded by the same members of the social right that made Reform and Alliance unelectable.



Spencer, Reid, Merrifield - how many more of these can Harper afford?



Merrifield, health critic talking on a health issue: PROM=2. Talking on an issue that the Conservatives can't stay safely far enough away from: SIG=2. Total, four points of bad news for the Mobius Strippers.

The local races



A couple of posts back, some debate is breaking out in the comments about the importance of the local candidate vs. the national party when determining a vote. It's generally believed that a really good, high-profile local candidate can gain a party about five percent in the riding. In my experience, though, a particularly poor one can be much more costly than that. And Rob Anders may be the worst that Calgary has to offer.



I came across this site only because they've linked to me, but now that I have, I'm thrilled to point people their way. Rob Anders, you might recall, was the MP who blocked honourary Canadian citizenship being granted to Nelson Mandela, because, according to Anders, Mandela was a "communist and a terrorist". That was certainly the high point of Anders' infamy, but there are many other examples of Anders taking stands well to the right (or some stranger direction) of the rest of his then Alliance caucus.



Voters of Calgary West, do you want to help the new Conservative party ground itself as reasonable, reliable, moderate, and acceptable to voters in all parts of the country? The greatest favour you can do the new Conservative Party is to vote against this buffoon.

Next time, I'll host an easier contest



Kevin Brennan has asked me about the gaffe scoring for the row between Dennis Mills and Olivia Chow, not even candidates in the same riding.



Was there a gaffe here? I don't think so, but it's definitely odd. I think I'm just going to stand a safe distance back, shake my head at the absurdity of it all, and move on from this moment.



It's all kinda proportional-representationy, since they aren't running against one another. Chow is the NDP candidate in TO-Spadina - what's she doing picking a fight with Mills, the Liberal candidate in TO-Danforth? (Or vice versa - I wasn't around to see Who Started It, which I understand is important if both Mills and Chow are in elementary school.)



No gaffe points for this, although a firm talking-to and possibly no television for a week are in order for them both.

Decision time



Well, I made two decisions over the weekend. First of all, gaffe points - Layton's Clarity Act declaration earns him three (SIG=1, PROM=3), in my opinion. Fact is, no matter how serious I think it is, it hasn't captured the attention of voters the way the homelessness declaration did, so I can't score it more seriously. Maybe it was the timing (Friday night is not a bad time to say something that might be unpopular, if you want it ignored by a wider audience), maybe it was the topic (who's thinking about Quebec separatism these days? Even the Quebec government is federalist. What's the big deal?), but there doesn't seem to be much reaction in the English press one way or the other.



But I still feel like this is going to come back to haunt him, and it is being trotted out on occasion already, generally not as a story of its own, but in context like this:

Layton started the week accusing Paul Martin of killing people and ended it by suggesting he'd be willing to let people kill Canada. What a nutbar.



On that basis alone, I'd say Dennis [Mills] is going to kick Jack's ass. [No permalink to the post - seek out May 31]

I think there was a point when Kinsella was even thinking about supporting the NDP this election. I think it's fair to say that opportunity has passed.



And hey, for me too. That was the harder decision this weekend - I walked away from the campaign I was working on. I didn't want to do it, because I still think John Chan is an excellent candidate, and I'm still wishing the campaign all the best. But I can't in good conscience keep working for a party so cavalier about Canada's future.



So, I guess I've just joined the most important portion of the electorate - the undecided. I will prepare myself to be wooed.

The worst part is, it probably wasn't a gaffe.



A Jack Layton government would repeal the Clarity Act. Great.



I don't know if this was before or after Stephane Dion accused the NDP of playing footsie with seperatists, but I suspect it was after, or Dion would have had much more to say on the subject. Either way, I don't think Layton could have illustrated Dion's point more eloquently. I can't abide that.



I'm not sure I can keep working for the NDP's election this campaign. I'm not sure I can cast a ballot for them. I'll admit, I'm not focused on trying to determine if this was a gaffe or not, and for how many points. I'll let my readers duke that out in the comments while I talk to some people in the party and try to determine what I'm doing now.

Degaffing



Scott Reid has resigned as Conservative critic for official languages.



Does this reduce the Conservative score? No. The gaffe was still made, and the seriousness of it that I reflected in the score has in turn been taken seriously by Harper. They moved quickly to contain the damage, which might end up having the opposite effect that I suggested last night - that the Conservatives will be seen as very different from their Reform predecessors.



Then again, they could always move Larry Spencer in as the replacement.



I kid, but not without point. Harper might be a different man, and the party name may have changed, and there may be a whole bunch of moderates in the party that would never have run for the Alliance. But every social Conservative on that slate (and there are still plenty) is a time bomb for this party, even with quick resignations to follow. It won't take many of these sorts of errors for Paul Martin's message - the Conservatives are scary and right-wing and closet Americophiles - to stick.

Spinning the gaffe dials



We've got gaffes coming out of our whatzits (whatzi?). Let's review the scoring.



First up, Layton's homelessness comments. There's been some excellent and interesting comments posted here and elsewhere on the issue. Some wonder if it was a mistake at all, but I have to come down on the side of "gaffe". I've decided this because the NDP was obviously not looking for this to become the issue of the day. All their messaging over the day was on the "price tag". The NDP have told us their platform, now here's what it costs, and here's how they'll finance it. Easy! Good, simple, moderate message. Nail down the left-Liberals you've been courting for four days.



Layton took two days of NDP momentum and distracted from it... now the issue is not about policy, but about Jack himself. Stupid, stupid. He didn't make the issue of homelessness high-profile, like some are congratulating him for. The only issue he made high-profile is Jack Layton - is he responsible enough to lead? I'm certain that at some point along the line, the NDP was readying a day's worth of messaging on homelessness. Probably would have been good, too - pie charts and stuff. On a day like that, after the media's exclusive campaign bus PowerPoint presentation, Jack could have said much the same thing he said yesterday - "Paul Martin cut this program, so he has to take responsibility for these deaths" - and no one would have batted an eye. PROM=3, SIG=2. Total GP: six for my team. Hate to do it to you, jack, but you brought it on yourself.



(I'd like to point out that while I'm trying to entertain, others are taking on the issue of homelessness directly. For more on the issue, an excellent start would be Vicki Smith's thoughtful overview of the roots of the problem, via the election blog.)



Close on Jack's heels are the Conservative Party. Today, their language policy critic, Scott Reid, said that a Harper government would remove availability to bilingual services in some parts of the country. Harper tried to distance himself from the comment: "They're his views. But, as I said, they are not party policy." And yet, Scott Reid, author of Canada Remapped: How the Partition of Quebec Will Reshape the Nation is still language policy critic. Kinda like how the strange little homophobe Larry Spencer was Family Issues critic.



Scott is evidently done with talk of partition, at least during this particular gaffe moment, but his position as the critic responsible adds to the significance of this error. All of a sudden, when Harper should have had a lovely opportunity to smack Layton around for the homelessness stuff, he instead has to run damage control. Otherwise, the Conservative Party will be cast as the old Reform Party, regressive on Quebec and French, among other things. I'm starting to think Harper can win this election if he can avoid that sort of casting. But it won't take too many Spencers or Reids to make that task impossible. PROM=2, SIG=2, so four for Parti Bande d'Mobius.



I'll update the counter in the morning, or when I can finally figure out why my jpegs are saving so dark... whichever comes first. But to review: NDP 6, Conservative 4, Liberal 1, and the Bloc (unless something is popping up in the French press that I haven't seen) remains lemony-fresh after four full days of campaigning.

Gaffe time



I'm aware of Layton's comments regarding homeless deaths in Toronto.

"Deaths due to homelessness in this city took a rapid rise immediately after Paul Martin cancelled the affordable housing program, and their names stand in testimony to the neglect that has been rained on our city," Layton said.

I'm concerned that the NDP's big advantage over the last few days - mostly above the sniping fray - has been given away. But for all of that, I don't think this is a gaffe... as yet. If the spin goes seriously south for the party, I'm willing to revise it; I think this one has the potential to be costly, if the media is looking for an excuse to pull Layton down. I think the statement, if we were to parse it carefully, is not quite so cut-and-dried as "Layton blames homeless deaths on Martin" as the headline claims, but if the NDP starts parsing it, they're acknowledging a gaffe. That will be the day I'll have to start putting up points.



As for the issue itself, I'm not sure what the "affordable housing program" did, so I don't think I'm well-suited to judge the cause-and-effect. Layton was on Toronto City Council, so he's likely able to better judge. And I don't think he'd wade quite this far out into the deep water if he wasn't pretty sure he could draw the logical line from one to the other. This is no crazy budget math we're talking about here... this is the issue, ahead of all others, where Layton lives. I'd be surprised if Layton or the NDP budge an inch from this - but I'll be watching.



Update: I'm already reconsidering. The quote in the Star is much more inflamitory: "I believe that when Paul cancelled affordable housing across this country it produced a dramatic rise in homelessness and death due to homelessness. I've always said I hold him responsible for that." Thanks to Kevin Brennan for the tip. I'm going to let this issue stew in the media for the rest of the day, but I'm now almost certain he's not going to get away with no points.

Mumbly Joe strikes again



(Cross-posted to the Blogscanada election blog)



Ever watched Paul Martin speak for any length of time? On prepared notes, he's rock-solid, if not the most engaging. But when he speaks extemporaneously, he talks too fast, and has what I can only describe as a "tic" - he's saying one thing, thinking another, and he's constantly correcting his word choices. The first time I noticed it was two days after Martin became Prime Minister, when Saddam Hussien was captured. He stuttered and mumbled his way through a hastily-convenied press conference - he referred more than once to the "Iraqians". Because that's what he does.



Jean Chretien had unbelievably mangled syntax. He wouldn't have lasted a week up against a mad dog press corps. But by and large, the Hill reporters just accepted it, and would often conspire to untangle his comments into the same cohesive sentences, so that it didn't appear that every reporter was attending a different press conference.



I'm reminded of this because Don at All Things Canadian points out another Rueters report of Martin doing his "Mumbly Joe" act. No one else, it seems, is reporting this misspeak. I think it's because the other political reporters have accepted this, and don't think Martin should be constantly punished for it.



Perhaps the Canadian voters should be getting the full picture of the PM, but I'm with the implied view of the larger group of reporters. This sort of reporting is a distraction, not a story. The Rueters reporter is attempting to build a narrative that says the Prime Minister is a muddy-minded stumbler. It's not yet sticking. Back to the contest of ideas, please.



In the meantime, no Gaffe points for Mumbly Joeisms reported by this particular Rueters reporter, until and unless this becomes a more widely-accepted narrative.

Gaffe scoring opens



Via the sharp-eyed Andrew, Paul Wells has noted from the campaign trail:

(a) the Martin Team's Quebec slogan, "droit devant," or "straight ahead," is identical to a Canada Steamship Lines slogan.



(b) Steve MacKinnon, a senior Team Martin strategist, took it upon himself to telephone a memeber of Le Devoir's senior management and ask that this story not run. "It risks harming our campaign," he said.



Le Devoir, no fools, promptly put MacKinnon's call and his quote right into the story he was trying to kill.

Of course, this isn't a huge error - it's the sort of thing that would only be noticed by CPAC-watching wonks such as ourselves. SIG=1. The decision to use the phrase was probably reasonably senior among the Quebec communications staff, but that's still not a big-time player. PROM=1. Total, One gaffe point to "Team Martin".



Andrew suggests MacKinnon's kill request is a seperate, additional-scoring gaffe. I strongly suspect that the MacKinnon part of the story here is overstated - no "Senior Team Martin Strategist" is going to think any newspaper is going to show his guy a break. I'm going to reserve judgement on this part, and keep an eye on this MacKinnon fellow.



The scoresheet above will be updated at the end of each day, so look for the change then.

The big winner of the first full day



I'm likely opening myself up to criticism that I'm being a partisan here, but for the first time since he was elected leader, I liked Jack Layton today. I can't remember the last time I heard a New Democrat campaign include balanced budgets as a central plank. Don't get me wrong - Tommy Douglas was a firm believer in balancing the books, and NDP provincial governments have proven no worse (though sometimes not better) at staunching the flow of red ink than Tories, Liberals, SoCreds, PQ, ... am I missing any? ... who have formed governments before them and since. But they generally haven't sold the point over the last few elections, and I think that's why there's distance between the NDP and the large part of the electorate now. It's nice to see the party catch up to the voters on this.



It was platform-unveiling day for the NDP, and besides balanced budgets, they've outlined a platform full of interesting ideas. I'm not sure I love all the ideas, and I'll want to spend a little more time hearing the party flesh out "green economy" and "creative tax relief" before I can become unequivocal.



But I can be certain of one thing - these are ideas. They aren't appeals to fear or greed or hatred, they aren't the demonization of one opposing leader or another. These ideas can travel around the country, be introduced by Layton, and leave Canadians to judge yea or nay on the merits.



Give me a month of that. Give me all the leaders doing that, and what you'd have there is some old-timey 18th century democracy. Except without the fear-mongering. I'd be down with that.



Do I seem to be belabouring this point? I figure it's important.

The debates begin!



I'm not talking about the debates between Harper, Martin, Layton, and Duceppe - no, I'm talking about the disputes over what is and is not a gaffe.



Don at All Things Canadian... has noted Martin's election announcement was somewhat sub-flawless:

when Martin stood up to the microphone, his mind was clearly elsewhere.



"A general election will be held on Monday the 21st, the 28th of Jan-, the 28th of June," he told reporters in French, quickly correcting himself with a laugh.

Here's what I wrote back to Don:

I can't fit enough digits across my page, if I have to award points to the Liberals every time Mumbly Joe opens his yap.

Comments? Should I be giving away points for every sign of an unclear mind? Or shall I save them up for vote-impacting errors?

Fabulous Prizes!



In less than an hour, the gaffe entry deadline will pass, and those of you who have no entry in will be left watching from the sidelines. Which might be entertaining too.



Tomorrow, I'll post the entries (don't worry, no names unless you're already a famous blogger, or would like to be) and the prize. I think. If I can dig something up. I mean, I have to go up against the trilogy of books in James Bow's contest, so I have to offer up something, right?



Speaking of which, if you've missed my deadline, go enter James' more traditional "guess the seats" contest. Because, again, trilogy of books! Plus, it requires actual knowledge, unlike the Gaffe-o-meter crapshoot. And in that one, there's no French judge to give Layton's budget gaffe a pass.



Elections are great, once you get past all that boring "issues" and "voting" and "responsible citizenship" malarky.



Update: and that's it - entries are closed. Stop your guessing, and start cheering for your favourite screw-ups!

Get going already!



C'mon, Paul. How long does it take to get to Rideau Hall? Mapquest (who I hope is planning to forgive my copyright infringement in exchange for the link) suggests the following route:







It's a little overcast, and you'll have a breeze to your back. You might want to put on a jacket.



Let's go, mister!

Did someone order an election devoid of ideas?



I listened to three highly-placed campaign workers discuss the upcoming election on The House this morning, and what a waste of time. I get the feeling the entire election will be sounding about the same:

Liberal: The Alliance Conservatives are scary. Stephen Harper has said some crazy things!



Conservative: Martin and other Liberals have said all of the same things. So vote for us, because we're not negative, like the Liberals, who are very negative. We don't compare ourselves to other parties, the way the Liberals do.



NDP: Those two are the same. We're different, because we have ideas. We're not going to tell you what those ideas are, though - rather, we're pretty much going to talk about the similarities between Martin and Harper.

I propose a debate format for the rest of the Saturdays throughout the campaign period, Anthony. Mentioning another party or leader gets your mic turned off. Three little kill switches - red, orange, and blue. Once they all get shut down, you call the Bloc campaign guy, and talk to him for the rest of the broadcast. Or have a back-up group of minor party candidates, who would be more than happy to talk about their own platforms instead of putting words in the mouths of the others.



Here's one prediction I've made before, but deserves a second iteration: all of this negative campaigning, alongside a late June election and no discussion of the positive platform differences among the parties, will serve to create the lowest turnout for a general election in Canada's history.

We do requests - the sequel



First up - Don at All Things Canadian asks:

Can you put up a couple of examples - say if these things were done during

the election campaign:



- Martin's Norway/Normandy switch

- Jack's math error on budget day

- how many points would Stock Day's Niagara direction gaffe have garnered

Let's have a go, shall I? Martin's (leader, therefore PROM=3) "Norway" thing, because it was repeated and more than a slip of the tongue, showed a pretty serious knowledge gap about Canada's and the world's history. Most Canadians knew he was incorrect without checking any maps or interwebs. On that basis, I'd have to measure the gaffe moderate (SIG=2). 3PROM * 2SIG = Six gaffe points (GP) for the Prime Minister.



Jack's "error" was a result of the sort of shaky math that I've seen both the left and the right rely on. You can see lots of the same sort of over-the-top assumptions to produce crazy numbers supporting claims unburdened by facts on the Fraser Institute's website, too. In that sense, I don't think this is a gaffe at all. I think the producer of the $222B debt repayment number knew exactly what the assumptions of the calculation were, and knew it was wrong but defensible. The NDP was speaking to its base with this number, something they've done a lot of lately. In short, I think the release was a bad calculation, bad economics, and bad politics - but I don't think it was a "gaffe", per se.



Stock Day (leader at the time, and therefore PROM=3) didn't know offhand which way the Niagara river flowed. If he were a Jeopardy contestant at the time, that might have mattered. However, the press used it as a stick to beat him up with, because the story they were running that entire campaign was "Stock Day is a mental lightweight." I don't think it was an entirely fair story - I hated his politics, but he wasn't stupid, and still isn't. This one is the toughest example you've asked me about, Don, but I'm going to have to go with SIG=1, no matter what storytelling the media was trying to do. But perhaps if we were back in that moment, it would look as huge as the media wanted it to look, and I'd be scoring it two. There's going to be some judgement calls here, and since no one has volunteered to be verifier, I guess you're all just going to have to take my word for it - or argue the heck out of each event in the comments. At any rate, Day's trip down the falls: 3PROM * 1SIG = three GP for the Canadian Alliance. Oh, how I miss them.



I want to give one spare example, because it's the Gaffe triple play: Jaques Parizeau blames money and the ethnic vote for losing the referendum in 1995. Leader (PROM=3), Stupid beyond belief and pretty racist, too (am I the only one who reads that sentence with the word "money" standing in for what I think he really meant: "Jews"?) (SIG=3), and throw in the Parizeau multiplier (within the twenty-four hours after the last vote was cast, so PRZ=2). 3PROM * 3SIG * 2PRZ = eighteen gaffe points for the little british-sounding fellow.



I could go on. In all of our examples, we're dealing with leader gaffes, because those are the most memorable. Campbell's "the election is no time to discuss issues" (or words to that effect) was probably a nine - 3*3. In the same way that Layton's numbers were factually questionable but not a "gaffe", Pettigrew's comments about private health providers being part of the system were factually correct but a SIG of two (perhaps three, but that doesn't really save any room for the huge ones, does it?). Give Pettigrew a PROM of 2, and the score added to the Liberal Party is four. I hope this clears it up for you, Don.



Request number two - my chess friend Walter is, I think, asking for a plug for chesstalk. Now if only I could find that URL again.....

I wonder when the parties will go negative during the campaign?



Hey, how about "before the writ is dropped"?



The Middleman (first, but many since) pointed me to this pair of sites. The first is the collection of negative ads produced by the Liberals that I discussed back here. The second is the Conservative responses, pretty much as predicted ("You know, the Martinites aren't so hot on these issues, either").



A late June election will keep some people away from the polls. The cynicism that stems from the parties going negative also keeps people away from the polls. I don't know who will win this election, but I'm more confident every day that no party will capture as many votes as the number of ballots that will simply not be cast.



On the bright side (from an NDP perspective), having the Liberals and Conservatives noting that the other party is not in line with the thinking of many Canadians on issues like health care and Iraq might convince some voters to look elsewhere. Of course, in James Bow's case, that means talking Green Party, but I'm sure the NDP will pick up a few votes as well, here and there.

Friday Funnies



Calgary MLA Jon Lord wrote a snarky e-mail about a constituent to a member of his staff, but sent the e-mail to the constituent instead. (Link to the story will come as soon as I can find one.)



On the bright side, Lord wrote the e-mail himself.

Who needs "Friends" with headlines like these?



Sitcoms are irrelevant - just turn on the evening news for your laughs.



A little background for the out-of-province - earlier this week, a Liberal discussion of public auto insurance brought the Premier to wax rhapsodic on his concern that too much democratic socialism caused revolution in Chile, and brought Pinochet to power:

"Pinochet came in, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not saying that Pinochet was any better, but because of the only elected communist in Chile, Allende, and the socialist reforms he put in, Pinochet was forced, I would say, to mount a coup."

Wow! Public auto insurance causes fascism, so look out, Winnipeg! I wonder if there's some sort of academic paper that could extend this argument?



It turns out that there is, and it was written by none other than our Premier!

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has been accused of plagiarism while writing a paper for his university degree in communications, the Edmonton Journal reported.



About five pages of the 13-page paper on Chilean politics and media were lifted directly from various Internet sites without benefit of quotation marks or appropriate attribution, the Journal reported.



...



Klein, 62, released his essay to the public last week to rebut criticism that he made sympathetic comments about former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the legislature.

Whoops! That sorta backfired. But it sure took the heat off the Pinochet thing, eh?



Update, the wee hours of Sunday morning: since the searchers through Google have been finding me through so many variants of "Ralph Klein" "essay" and "plagerize", I thought you should make up your own minds if it was truly plagerism, or simply shoddy attribution. I think it's the latter, which should still give some pause, but that's certainly a lesser sin. Nonetheless, the CBC has helpfully posted the entire thing in PDF format here.

I've heard this one before, but I'm a big enough sucker to report it



Ken Dryden will be running as a Toronto candidate for the Liberals. He's had this opportunity before, so I'm not sure why he's waited until the Liberal ship is sinking to hop on board. Perhaps he really believes in Paul Martin.



Bwah hah hah!



No, but seriously.....

Rummy gets legal advice



Donald Rumsfeld would dearly love to show us the rest of the Iraq prisoner photos. But, you know, the lawyers told him he shouldn't. Those darned lawyers!



Did those lawyers have any sort of opinion about the detainees in Guantanamo? Or about the pictures of dead or captured Iraq soldiers at the beginning of the war? Or about the pictures of Saddam Hussien having his gums examined? Perhaps they have some opinion about torturing prisoners in the first place? Or, perhaps about the unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation? Did the lawyers have anything to say about any of that, Rummy, you unbelievable ass? I'm sure you realize your resignation would make common Iraqis hate America just a little less, as if you were showing some contrition about the torture, but that would involve sacrifice, wouldn't it? Sacrifice is something you make your soldiers do, not something you'd ever consider.



I don't write much about the Iraq occupation any more, because, honestly, who can keep up with the disingenuity and bullheadedness and pure blindness of the Shrub administration?

Feel safer?



Monsanto will not be marketing Roundup-Ready Wheat - for now.



Let's have a quick overview, for you city-dwellers out there.



Roundup is a herbicide - a non-selective one. Other herbicides tend to be selective about what they kill, only knocking out the broad-leafed plants in a grain field, for instance. But Roundup kills whatever it hits. You know that spray bottle you bought at the garden supply place - the one you use to spray your dandelions? That's Roundup.



Roundup-Ready grains are grains that don't die from Roundup - which means that a field of this grain can be sprayed generously, with the expectation that all the other plants will die. Monsanto likes selling genetically-modified grainseed, but they like selling Roundup at least as much. This is "synergy" in the GMO world.



Now, if you're the type to fear GMOs, don't feel too pleased about this... Roundup-Ready Canola has been growing in Canadian fields for years. And canola is the soy of Canadian processed foods - check almost any box or can in a Canadian grocery store, and if there's "vegatable oil", what you have there is Canola - probably Roundup-Ready canola, at least in part. (If you're reading in the USA, feeling all smug about your soy, don't. It's almost certainly GMO as well)



I'm not that type. I'll happily eat all the three-headed pigs you can serve me, so long as they're in bacon form. But what I'm not entirely comfortable with is fields and fields of Roundup, breeding resistance into the weed world. Like antibiotic overuse, too much Roundup over time undermines the effectiveness of the product. For that reason, I'm concerned, not with the GMOs themselves, but with what companies like Monsanto have decided GMOs are for - not feeding the world, just moving a slow product. Monsanto's retreat on R-R wheat in the face of consumer and government resistance was a step in the right direction, but only the first.

We do requests



A regular reader has expressed concern that I haven't mentioned the unforseen successes of the local hockey organization. Fine. Here goes.



Congratulations to the Medicine Hat Tigers, who swept the Everett Silvertips in four straight games to win the WHL championship, and advance to the Memorial Cup!



I'm sorry? Miikka who? Does he curl?

Two outta three ain't great



(cross-posted to the BlogsCanada election blog)



Kinsella notes that the Alliance Conservatives have already rebutted the three attack-ad accusations I mention here. Two of them are exactly as I predicted - mention Pettigrew in relation to health, and mention the caucus to establish the new party's multicultural bona fides.



But the Iraq reaction is weaker:

Stephen Harper believes Canada should have morally supported our allies and to our troops who the Liberals sent to the Iraq region. He wishes our allies success in helping to stabilize, democratize, and rebuild Iraq.



If Mr. Martin disagrees with the Conservative position, he should clearly state his position - because Canadians are caught between his doublespeak.

It's fair enough to suggest that Martin might have cozied up to the US had he been PM last year, and I think this hints in that direction without coming out and saying so. But Martin isn't the only one who is engaging in doublespeak, here... Harper was clear leading up to the war. Canada should participate. I disagreed, as strongly as possible, but it was the clear position of the Alliance under Harper. I think that position will hurt Harper in the election, but I think being caught equivocating will hurt a lot more.

"Mr. Speaker, the issue of war requires moral leadership. We believe the government should stand by our troops, our friends and our allies and do everything necessary to support them right through to victory." House of Commons, April 1, 2003. [Italics mine. There's so much more where this came from, right here.]

Harper has three reasonable choices right now. He can say "I was wrong, and I'm glad we didn't get involved in that quagmire. If I'm elected, I will not send young Canadians into it now." He can say "WMD or not, our allies brought a despotic ruler to his knees, and for that, they should be congratulated. But there's no point in getting Canadian troops involved now, and I will not do so if elected." He can even say "Forget, for a moment, our traditional allies. It's the Iraqi people who deserve whatever help we can bring them. Canada may not have had a part in deposing the dictator, but we should certainly have a part in helping the Iraqi people put their lives and their country back together. But given the situation right now, that requires troops as well as aid workers."



What he can't say is "Canada should have morally supported our allies...", because that's just begging for someone --- a Liberal someone --- to cry "bullshit." And then Canadians get to ask the begged question: if he's lying to us now about words in the public record, what else will he lie about if we let him move into 24 Sussex?

Jumping the gun



Okay, my mistake. I guess you have a few weeks left to get in on the Gaffe-o-meter, because all sources seem to be saying the call Sunday or Monday is out.



Fine. But I can't understand why the Liberals want to take more time - their eleven attack ads are all ready.

"If Stephen Harper becomes PM you'll have two health-care options," says the stark white text on the black screen.



"Be rich or don't get sick."



...



"In 2003, Stephen Harper urged Canada to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq," the on-screen text reads as the sound of machine-gun fire and fighter jets plays in the background.



"He said, 'There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction.'



"Oops.



"If Stephen Harper was prime minister last year, Canadians would be in Iraq this year," it reads.



"Choose wisely. Choose Paul Martin and the Liberals."



...



"Stephen Harper says, quote, west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada, people who live in ghettos and who are not integrated into Western Canadian society.



"What's Harper saying? New Canadians shouldn't be allowed to vote."

I think the Liberals are going to have to be very careful about which of these they use. Casting Harper as a racist will not fly, when the Alliance Conservatives have the most ethnically diverse caucus in the house. Talking about two-teir health could bite them in the collective ass, considering Pierre Pettigrew's comments last week. But the Iraq ad? That baby's gold, everywhere in this country except among the hard core old-timey Reformers, who kind of secretly wish they were Americans themselves.



I can't wait to see the attack ads against the other parties. "Jack Layton wants you to ride a bicycle, and take a bus. If Jack Layton were Prime Minister today, your Lincoln Navagator would be scrap metal." "Gilles Duceppe wants to break up the country. I mean, completely!"



Can we get on with the election, already? What are we waiting for?

Busy busy



You have likely noticed that I'm not posting with the impressive regularity you've grown accustomed to. I feel I should apologise.



The fact is, between the campaign and the "part-time business", my time has become more restricted than it ever was when I was working for a living. I've got the time to write, sure, but I don't feel as informed as I should be if I'm going to represent myself as a pundit, online or otherwise. It's difficult to fact-check Levant when I don't have any particular facts at hand, and don't have the time to find them. (Actually, it's not that hard. Everything he says is crazy.)



Did I mention that the Calgary Sun is now publishing Coulter? Between the two, we really get both ends of the political spectrum: the crazy right, and the crazy dangerous right. But the sports section kicks ass! I digress.



Still, once the writ drops May 9th, the gaffe-o-meter will appear at the top of this page, and I will make the time to keep the score current. Presuming that's the date of the call, I'll give you until --- well, because it's a Sunday, let's say noon MDT on May 10 to get your entries in.



So get your entries in, already.