Dreams of Wardrobe

Ignatieff pledges not to reciprocate personal attacks

If there's any one word that could be used to sum up the recent Conservative ads regarding Michael Ignatieff, it's personal.

Rarely have Canadian politicians taken it upon themselves to attack a political opponent on such personal grounds, but the Conservatives have done this. It's absolutely undeniable.

Speaking on the matter today, however, the Liberal leader has pledged not to attack Stephen Harper on personal grounds -- at least not overtly.

"Let's be clear how we carry the attack, because I will not attack Mr Harper's patriotism," Ignatieff promised. "I will not attack his character. I will not attack his family. I will attack his record, and God knows, there's enough to work on."

"There's enough on the record that we can attack: record unemployment, record bankruptcies, record deficit," Ignatieff announced. "That should give us enough to be getting along with."

And while Ignatieff knows full well that the economic stimulus package -- the stimulus package that he and his fellow members of the opposition demanded -- is responsible for Canada's current deficit, and knows full well that economic mismanagement south of the border is responsible for Canada's current economic condition, it's encouraging to hear Ignatieff pledge to restrict his campaigning against Stephen Harper to substantive matters of policy.

And while it would be both encouraging and wise for the Liberal party to try to brand itself as the party of the high road -- thereby counter-branding the Conservative party as perveyours of low-road politics -- one also has to remember that this would be counter-characteristic of the Liberal party.

After all, it was the Liberal party that dressed Stephen Harper up in fictional policy. It was the Liberal party who insinuated that Harper would summarily declare martial law if elected to office.

Michael Ignatieff may personally be able to scrape together enough credibility to temporarily change the public image of his party. But Canadians will remember the disgusting and shameful lows the Liberals sank to in order to attack Stephen Harper. They'll remember that as disgusting and irresponsible as the Conservatives' current batch of political ads are, previous Liberal ads were even more disgusting and even more irresponsible.

Canadians may also be intrigued to be introduced, once more, to the "tough guy" personae, wherein he indulges himself in blue-collar tough talk, replete with calculatingly devolved language.

"If you mess with me, I will mess with you until I'm done," Ignatieff pronounced.

It's a bold statement, but one has to hope that Ignatieff is as good as his word. Even though the Liberal party has never succeeded electorally against Stephen Harper without resorting to personal -- and often fictionalized -- attacks, one has to hope that at least someone in Canada has the courage to rise above the personal mudslinging that has passed for political campaigning in this country for too long.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Ideas Revolutionary - "Attack Ads"

With opposition parties likely getting ready to gear up their law and order policy planks following yesterday's school shooting in Toronto, it's unsurprising that the Conservatives have reacted so quickly with a spot addressing crime.

With Stephane Dion likely to step up his gun control-related rhetoric in the aftermath of these shootings, the Conservatives seem to be moving to preemptively re-brand ahead of futher accusations on Dion's behalf that the Tories haven't made Canada a safer place.

In the ad -- clearly produced at the same time as the preceding "sweater vest" ads -- Harper talks about the need for preventative measures when dealing with crime, but notes that "soft on crime does not work".

The implicit accusation is that the opposition parties are soft on crime -- an accusation that could gain traction in wake of the opposition's treatment of various Conservative anti-crime bills.

In other words, the Conservative campaign is counter-branding the opposition as soft on crime even as it re-brands itself as the party of law and order.

Moreover, the advertising arm of the Conservative campaign is clearly operating just the way it should. It's been responsive to the news and proactive in regards to the opposition.

A question remains about whether the Tory crime spot is being released too soon following the high-profile Toronto shooting. But one thing's for certain: in terms of advertising, the Conservative machine is burying their competitors, and the party's extremely successful fundraising is helping them do it.

Conservatives thin on foreign policy thinkersm experience

As conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia continue to dominate the established international agenda and advocates for intervention in Zimbabwe, Myanmar and the Sudan continue to demand attention, there is no question that foreign policy will be a hot-button topic in the new Parliament regardless of which party wins the election.

On that note, some may be surprised to find out that, since current Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson has declined to run for reelection, the incumbent Conservative party is shockingly short on foreign policy expertise.

Emerson, most will recall, took over the portfolio from Maxime Bernier, whose misadventures with classified information made him a tremendous liability to cabinet. Previous to Bernier's ascension to the portfolio -- which speculation suggests he was never had any interest in -- Peter MacKay handled the department fairly successfully before being suffled to National Defense to make up for the emerging of deficiencies of previous minister Gordon O'Connor.

MacKay has since managed the Department of Defense effectively. Which leads one to wonder whom, precisely, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would appoint to Foreign Affairs following what currently seems to be an impending election victory.

As Embassy points out, however, the Conservatives seem to be suffering from a shortage of experience and expertise on the Foreign Affairs portfolio, while their various opponents seem to be awash in it.

First and foremost, naturally, there's Liberal Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff has written extensively on the topic of human rights, ethnic conflict, and the laws of war. He also has a tremendous amount of journalistic experience under his belt, harkening to his days with the BBC.

The NDP's answer to Michael Ignatieff is Michael Byers. Byers is a recognized expert on arctic sovereignty issues, and served as part of the Amnesty International legal team that sought Augusto Pinochet's conviction for crimes against humanity.

Also representing the NDP is Brad Pye, who has experience advancing democracy abroad with the National Democratic Institute (which, unsurprisingly, has deep ties to the American Democratic party, serving to further undermine NDP complaints about alleged importing of American political ideas by the Conservative party).

Also running for the Liberals is Dr Kirsty Duncan, a former panelist on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- expertise which clearly falls into line with Stephane Dion's Green Shift agenda.

The Liberal ticket will also feature Anne Park Shannon, a former civil servant in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

War Child Canada president Dr Eric Hoskins will also be running for the Liberals. Hoskins will almost certainly supplement Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire's expertise on issues related to children in warzones, particularly child soldiers.

Attempting a comeback is former Liberal Defense Minister David Pratt. Pratt has been out of Parliament since his 2004 defeat at the hands of Conservative Pierre Poillevre.

With arguably little expertise to spread between Foreign Affairs and Defense, Pratt would provide the Liberals with yet another weapon to use against the Conservative government -- provided, of course that he can manage to unseat Tory Environment Minister John Baird.

The Green party also has a score of candidates promoting themselves as foreign policy experts -- foremost among them the Ottawa Group of Four.

The Conservatives are considered to have one foreign policy heavyweight in their fold -- Patrick Boyer, who served in various foreign affairs-related sectors under Brian Mulroney. However, Boyer is running against the aforementioned Michael Ignatieff, and is as such unlikely to win.

With so many formidable (or at least formidable-seeming) opponents to compete against, it's a near certainty that foreign policy will be a weakpoint for the Conservatives not only during this election, but also during the upcoming Parliament.

There is, of course, a long-term solution to this problem: the Tories need to cultivate stronger relationships with the Senior Civil Service in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and need to start cultivating stronger relationships with various international Non Governmental Organizations.

That the Conservative party is attracting so few potential candidates from NGOs perhaps underscores a fundamental lack of understanding about the emerging shape of the global political order: one in which governments cooperate with civil society in the formulation of foreign policy.

The Conservatives are also clearly lacking a relationship with academia. If the Conservatives truly want to be able to claim to have an eye on the outside world, it would pay to start recruting from those who actually study it.

Until the Conservative party can muster some candidates with legitimate foreign policy chops, it will be hard to view a Conservative foreign policy as comprehensive and outward-looking.

In only their second English-language ad released during this election campaign, the Liberal party has finally deployed its first English-language counter-branding spot against Stephen Harper.

For some political parties, a week would be a long time to wait. For the cash-strapped Liberal party, maybe not so much.

That being said, the ad begins by pushing Harper's image closer to that of an unpopular American president. In a marginally creative shift, however, that president isn't George W Bush, although it is a Republican.

Instead, it's Ronald Regan, as the spot substitutes Harper's name into the "Reganomics" label so often used to describe Regan's trickle-down economic policies.

The ad first questions Harper's commitment to environmental policy. Obviously, the ad doesn't mention that Liberal MP Ralph Goodale recently admitted that, by the criteria that most environmental groups allegedly judge environmental policy, the Tory Green Plan is superior to the Liberal Green Shift.

The spot accuses the Conservatives of writing a "blank cheque" to oil companies to pollute and gouge Canadians at the gas pumps. Conservative Environment Minister John Baird has already struck back for the Tories on this issue, pointing out that the Green Shift plan would allow oilsand developers to continue polluting so long as they're willing to pay carbon taxes.

The spot also points out some of Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's comments about Ontario last year, wherein he questioned whether or not the province needed to cut corporate taxes in order to make investment in the province more viable.

The ad also notes the number of programs -- 66 in total according to the ad -- and accuses Harper of "divide and conquer politics".

This overlooks the fact that it's traditionally been the Liberals who have indulged themselves in "divide and conquer politics", pandering to Quebec and Ontario while largely ignoring the rest of the country. Only after the rise of the Bloc Quebecois have the Liberals been required to win seats across the country in order to form governments.

It's intriguing to see the Liberals, in the course of their counter-branding effort, trying to brand the Conservatives with a fault that has traditionally been their own.

Whether or not it works will be another story entirely.

The ad concludes by welcoming Canadians to "turn the page" with the Liberal Green Shift plan. The drab black-and-white images played during the "Harpernomics" portion of the ad is then substituted for colour images of promised environmentally-friendly prosperity under the Green Shift.

However, with the release of this ad -- their second ad promoting their vaunted Green Shift plan -- the Liberals are at risk of becoming a single-issue party.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have released ads concerning immigration, foreign policy, trade policy, and child care. While none of these ads tell the viewer very much about the related Conservative policies, they make the Conservative platform seem a good deal more comprehensive than the Liberal alternative.

Meanwhile, the ad also has a pivotal weakness: it's certain to remind voters who don't like Harper why they dislike him, but they're unlikely to convince many undecided voters against him, nor do they make any real specific appeal for NDP or Green party voters to switch to the Liberals.

At least one thing can be said for certain: with their first anti-Harper ad on the air in English Canada, the Liberal campaign's gloves have effectively come off.

The second round of this election has officially begun.

Questions remain concerning Canada's Post-2011 Role in Afghanistan

The promised 2011 end-date to Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan may be welcome to those many Canadians who end the war, but even in making this promise, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defense Minister Peter MacKay have some explaining to do.

The now-planned end of the combat mission in 2011 doesn't constitute "cutting and running", according to MacKay. "Certainly not. We have been there in a military developmental and diplomatic role for some time now. We made significant contributions to the development of Afghanistan. We have done our share."

Of course, at the end of the day, it will matter very little as to whether or not Canada has "done its share" if the job remains undone.

Fortunately, in comments reported in the September 11th issue of the Globe and Mail, MacKay has suggested that Canada will maintain a role in Afghanistan after 2011.

"We're there in numerous roles. We're there participating in reconstruction and development through CIDA,” he said. "We have diplomats who are working in Kabul. We have a significant number of civilian police trainers and military trainers and there are of course going to be NGOs [non-governmental organizations], so Canada will continue to support the effort to rebuild Afghanistan."

"But the Stephen Harper was crystal clear. He said the mission ends in 2011 and that's consistent with the vote that was taken in Parliament. That's respecting Parliament's voice."

Unfortunately, there are questions that remain unanswered. To have CIDA and Canadian diplomats at work in Afghanistan after 2011 is all and good, but an important question remains:

Afghanistan will almost certainly remain a theatre of warfare after 2011. As such, Canadians need to know who will fill the role of securing said theatre for our aid workers and diplomats.

To effect a full-scale withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan -- as Stephen Harper has indicated -- would be, as Jim Davis has noted -- irresponsible.

And not merely so the deaths of the soldiers already killed in Afghanistan aren't in vain, because it would be irresponsible to leave our aid workers and diplomats in harm's way.

In the end, only one real option remains: that of Canadian troops remaining in Afghanistan to ensure our aid workers and diplomats are properly protected. This would, by necessity, mean Canadian troops staying in Afghanistan in more than simply a "technical" role.

MacKay and Harper may want to wait until after the election to make any final decisions on Afghanistan. After all, it may be "Parliament's wishes" that the combat mission in Khandahar end at that time, but if "Parliament's wishes" are that Canadian diplomats and CIDA workers remain in Afghanistan protected only by the good graces of the Afghan army and our NATO allies, Parliament as a whole may find itself explaining itself to Canadians in the event that any of them come to harm.

Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay most certainly don't want to find themselves at the forefront of that.

Green Shift plan not playing well in Saskatchewan

As observers look ahead to the results of the 14 October federal election, two questions loom large.

First: will the Conservatives sweep Alberta again?

Second: can the Conservatives sweep Saskatchewan?

In Alberta, the prospects of another smothering Conservative victory remain strong. Although Rahim Jaffer could be upset in Edmonton-Strathcona and Laurie Hawn will have to work hard to hold Edmonton Centre, the Tories still have a solid provincial victory earlier in the year giving them the momentum they need to maintain their lock on Alberta.

In Saskatchewan, meanwhile, Wascana MP Ralph Goodale remains the only Liberal awash in a sea of blue.

He was one of two non-Conservative MPs in the province until Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River MP Gary Merasty resigned his seat. In a by-election he was replaced by Conservative Rob Clarke, who defeated Liberal Joan Beatty. Beatty had been hand-chosen by Stephane Dion over current candidate David Orchard, who had been chosen by the party's riding association.

Orchard has already called for Dion to soften the Green Shift's inevitable impact on farmers.

Orchard has, against Dion's inclinations, been cast into a star candidate role in Saskatchewan. But that isn't where Liberal troubles end in the province. Not by a longshot.

Just as in Alberta, conservatives in Saskatchewan have an election victory -- this one by Brad Wall's Saskatchewan party -- to provide them with momentum.

Wall has come out and criticized Liberal leader Stephane Dion's Green Shift plan. Wall noted that the Green Shift plan would result in a loss of $500 million per annum for Saskatchewan and a 41% increase in electricity costs by 2012.

For his own part, Goodale denounced Wall's claims as "crock of unmitigated horsefeathers."

Unfortunately for Goodale, horses don't have feathers, and Scott Brison, one of the masterminds of the Green Shift plan, has already admitted that the plan will result in higher electicity costs.

"Their arithmetic is just completely wrong, mistaken and false," Goodale insisted, noting that corporate tax cuts accompanying carbon taxation should make up for the extra costs. In theory.

"This is the old Conservative tactic of throw enough mud against the fan and hope everyone gets splattered," Goodale added.

According to political scientist Ken Rasmussen, Wall's comments likely won't have much effect on the election in Saskatchewan. "This is a province that the Tories have, I wouldn't say sewn up, but they're probably going to be quite effective in retaining their seats," he noted.

University of Saskatchewan political scientist David McGrane thinks otherwise. "The fact that Premier Wall has been so outspoken in saying that the Green Shift is harmful for Saskatchewan, that's definitely going to play in favour of the Conservatives," he predicted.

Meanwhile, David Orchard may be stepping on the wrong toes in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River by opposing uranium mining. This in a rural riding where the Green Shift will almost certainly prove to be anathema. “The proposed carbon tax will spell economic doom for the north, in forestry, exploration, farming. Orchard is against uranium mining and oil development,” Rob Clarke noted. “The carbon tax is going to increase fuels costs and raise costs on all household items. Being in government, I will prevent that from happening."

Stephen Harper has offered solid support of his candidate in Wascana, Michelle Hunter.

Clearly, Harper understands the value of unseating Goodale, a former Finance Minister.

For his own part, Goodale insists that the Liberal Green Shift plan would be less costly than the Conservative plan. "They are going to impose costs by imposing their regulations and the target they're aiming at is 35 per cent more severe than Mr Dion's plan. But the crucial difference is that the Dion plan has across-the-board income tax cuts for every family, every individual, every business in the country that will add up to the biggest reduction in income tax in Canadian history," Goodale insisted.

So, while Goodale admits that, by the measuring stick that most environmentalists are measuring climate change policy, Harper's plan is better, Goodale wants to insist that, well, the Liberal plan will at least be cheaper.

Goodale and the Liberals can't even seem to play straight with the environmental lobby.

All the while many Canadians remain concerned about Dion's plans for potential carbon tariffs and seeming lack of a post-Green Shift vision, particularly vis a vis the recovery of lost revenue once carbon tax revenues decline with greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberals have their work cut out for them in Saskatchewan. Come October 14, Saskatchewan could be joing Alberta adorned in Tory blue.

Election costs party leaders in public regard

As the 2008 federal election progresses, each party leader is hoping to make a positive impression on Canadians and improve their party's standings in the House of Commons.

Almost inevitably, some parties will accomplish the latter. But a poll released yesterday reveals that none have yet accomplished the latter. In fact, Canada's political leaders have done the precise opposite.

Stephen Harper's sweater vest and lack-lustre campaign ads couldn't save him from being the leader losing the most -- 36% of polled Canadians hold him in lesser regard, likely due to an unprincipled election call and a pair of serious campaign gaffes on the part of his Conservative Party.

Liberal leader Stephane Dion suffered as well. 32% of Canadians hold him in lower regard following a week in which he claimed he wanted an open debate about his Green Shift plan, but instead settled for calling his Conservative opponents liars.

Jack Layton tried to emulate Barack Obama, but 15% of Canadians found him to be considerably less appealing than that.

23% of polled Canadians found Gilles Duceppe less appealing. Picking at the religious beliefs of a Conservative candidate probably didn't help him much, but then again the only numbers that are really applicable to Duceppe are the ones collected in Quebec.

Hopefully, Canada's political leaders will avert the course they've been following and give Canadians a little less reason to feel cynical and discouraged about our politics.

In a new ad released yesterday, the Conservative party took advantage of a trade-related issue brought up by Stephane Dion.

Dion has suggested that the allgedly weak environmental policies of the Conservative government would imperil Canadian trade, as other countries impose punitive tariffs on countries judged to have taken insufficient action fighitng climate change.

"Other countries are considering slapping carbon tariffs on those who don't take action on climate change. As hard as it is to believe, for now, Canada is one of those countries," Dion recently said.

Dion's Green Shift plan promises to impose such "carbon tariffs" on other countries judged to be dragging their feet on climate change.

The ad itself seems to have been put together rather hastily. It features a different narrator than previous Conservative ads, and relies almost overwhelmingly on the analysis of a single expert -- Carlton University's Michael Hart. It features images of numerous Canadian trading partners being stamped with the word "tariff" as it progresses toward its logical conclusion: a map of the United States -- Canada's largest trading partner -- being stamped.

Perhaps it's inevitable that trade-related issues (in particular, Free Trade-related issues) were going to come up in the election campaign. In August, David Orchard, Canada's leading anti-free trader finally secured his opportunity to run for the Liberal party.

Perhaps it was only a matter of time before the Liberal party offered up some kind of Free Trade-related policy -- one that would inevitably require the abrogation of NAFTA -- in order to keep their newest star candidate in the fold.

Not so surprisingly, Dion's trade-related musings closely resemble musings by Barack Obama that he would try to renegotiate NAFTA in order to add environmental agreements. Considering Dion's poor performance on fighting climate change during his last go around, questions over whether or not Dion is, like Obama, merely bluffing remain lefitimate.

As such, the Conservative counter-branding effort in this case ironically tries to drive Dion closer to potentially unpopular policies of the man he would likely most like to emulate, even if Jack Layton is outdoing him on that particular front right now.

This subtext of the ad -- and reminders that many key details about Dion's Green Shift plan have been postponed in Campbellian fashion until after the election -- seem to be meant to work together to encourage voters to question Dion's genuinity and ponder the economic consequences of such a move.

The ad also represents a notable shift in the overall Conservative campaign -- moving away from tactics of ridicule and toward serious debate.

This particular ad is a bold move for the Conservative party. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect it has on the campaign.

Ryan Sparrow screws the proverbial pooch, is shown actual door

"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."

Those are the words that should have been uttered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper today, as he suspended Communications Director Ryan Sparrow.

Sparrow has been suspended for an email he sent to CTV following an appearance by Jim Davis, the father of fallen Corporal Paul Davis, following an appearance on Canada AM, in which he (rightfully) criticized Stephen Harper's promise to end the Canadian Forces engagement in Afghanistan in 2011.

Sparrow responded by emailing CTV and telling them that Davis is a Liberal party member who supported Michael Ignatieff during the 2006 Liberal leadership contest.

So the question on many people's minds is: so fucking what?

Not as in "Ryan Sparrow emailed CTV: so fucking what," but: "Jim Davis is a Liberal. So fucking what?"

Davis is entirely right to be concerned that his son's death not be in vain. Davis is entirely right to voice his opinion that, when Canada finally withdraws from Afghanistan, the mission there will have been accomplished. Jim Davis is entirely right to express his opinion.

And it isn't as if he had never confronted Liberals over their policies in Afghanistan. In July 2007, Davis encouraged Liberal leader Stephane Dion to support the extension of Canada's Afghanistan engagement.

Davis has been anything but partisan in his comment on Afghanistan. He has now taken both federal leaders on over their stance regarding the mission.

For Sparrow to try to suggest that Davis was acting as a partisan hack is nothing short of shameful -- especially considering that he himself was acting as nothing more than a partisan hack.

Sparrow's behaviour is not only embarassing for himself or his party. It's also embarassing for his country. Canadians expect better than this out of their politicians.

Davis, for his own part, has remained classy throughout this entire shameful affair. He's voiced his disagreement with Sparrow's suspension, noting that "we all learn from our mistakes and we become better people because of that. The last thing that I would want is somebody to have hardship over my son's death. That's not what this is all about, this is not politics."

Unfortunately, however, Sparrow didn't get that particular memo -- just as online hatemoger Canadian Cynic didn't get the message that it's unacceptable to attack the parents of war casualties for political purposes.

And he still hasn't gotten the memo. (But for those keeping track on Cynic's psychopathic delusions of personal destruction, one may want to take note of the effect such an attack can have on one's personal career -- just something for the hateful sociopath to mull over for a little while.)

Davis never wanted his son's death to be about politics. Unfortuantely, Ryan Sparrow tried to make it about politics and, as such, he should be making a much more permanent exit from his position with the Conservative party than merely a "suspension".

"Goodbye, Ryan. Thank you for your time."

Stephen Harper should be memorizing that.

Bloc Quebecois wounded by 'friendly fire'

Two days after criticizng the religious beliefs of a Conservative candidate as "out of touch with Quebec values", Gilles Duceppe is facing down a critical identity crisis within his party, as some senior Pequistes are wondering precisely what "Quebec values" really are.

"The leftist, ideological bric-a-brac (state interventionism, egalitarianism, pacifism, environmentalism, anti-Americanism) transforms itself, as if by alchemy, into ‘Quebec values' that we must defend furiously," wrote Jacques Brassard, a former Parti Quebecois minister. "The Bloc has thus become the twin of the NDP, that archaic Canadian socialist party."

"Sovereignty has more or less been put on the back burner. It's not discussed any more. The circumstances aren't suitable. But the fact remains that that's why the Bloc exists," Brassard wrote. "I'm sorry, but this does not suit me. I don't recognize myself in this party."

For his own part, Duceppe naturally disagrees with Brassard's assertions. "In a democracy there are people who belong to a family who do not necessarily agree with what happens in that family," Duceppe replied.

However, with Conservative party support rising in Quebec, Conservative trade minister Michael Fortier naturally rushed to take advantage of the situation, pointing out the Bloc's dismal record in Ottawa.

"Mr Duceppe cannot mention in all honesty a single achievement, a single real gain for Quebecers, which is attributable to the Bloc," Fortier announced. "Any municipal council accomplishes more in one year than the Bloc has in 18 years."

The Bloc's poor record and effective abandonment of the sovereignty issue may be to blame for the party's decreasing support. In the January 2006 federal election, they claimed 42% of the Quebec vote. With the 2008 balloting just over a month away, the party is poised to claim a mere 30%.

Brassard's comments come less than a month after an internal kerfuffle within the Bloc's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, as Francois Legault noted that the separatist cause in Quebec has suffered a significant setback.

All this being said, it would be premature to start writing off separatism as "dead", as Pierre Trudeau once did (to his own and nearly the entire country's chagrin), as University of Montreal political scientist Pierre Martin notes.

"All journalists should take the stories about the death of the Bloc and bury them. This is not going to happen as long as you have anywhere between a third and half of the electorate who claim to be 'sovereigntist' -- there will be a voice for that electorate," Martin said.

Separatism is far from dead. However, it's certainly in intensive care for at least the short term.

Anti-family label is just plain silly

Yesterday, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the Liberals and NDP for allegedly being "anti-family", the Conservatives released yet another spot targeting Stephane Dion.

The ad addresses a previous statement by Stephane Dion in which he announced he would cut the Conservative's $1200 per annum childcare tax credit.

The ad insists that the choice to voters is clear "you keep the $1200, or [Dion] gets it."

Dion has denounced the claim as a "lie". Yet Dion did, in fact, say that he would cancel the Tory plan. More specifically, Dion would replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with Ken Dryden's plan for a national daycare program.

"The Dryden plan was much better. We need child care facilities to provide Canadian parents with real choice. It's a matter of social justice, but also of sound economics: child care facilities are a good way to encourage flexibility and mobility of our workforce, at a time when, often, two parents are working outside the home."

Which is obviously precisely what the ad is referring to when it warns that "[Dion] thinks he can spend [the $1200] better than you can."

Thus, there's nothing dishonest about the ad.

However, the ad's place in an effort to counter-brand Stephane Dion as "anti-family" is just plain silly. After all, Dion is a family man himself. It's unlikely that Dion himself would do anything to hurt his own family. Anything that would hurt Canadian families would inevitably hurt his own, in one way or another.

Just as Jack Layton is a family man as well, and has campaigned on numerous pro-family policies.

However, as silly as the Conservative effort to counter-brand Dion as Layton as "anti-family" (and there is a great peril in dragging politics down into the realm of vapid "anti-" labels), Dion's attempt to counter-brand the Conservatives as "liars" is doubly silly.

For one thing, the claims in the Conservative ad pan out to be true. Secondly, the base accusation of lying portrays Dion as a man incapable of debating the real issues -- instead choosing to dodge behind accusations of lies.

Stephen Harper himself insisted that the 2008 federal election would be a nasty one. With moves such as the inherently silly "anti-family" label, he's done more than his fair share to make it a nasty one.

Equally unfortunately, Stephane Dion has proven himself more than willing to oblige him.

Byfield encourages social conservatives to lobby the government

At a recent event Wynyard, Saskatchewan commemorating Joe Borowski's Trial for Life, Ted Byfield addressed the crowd with a speech entitled "How Did We Get into This Predicament?"

The "predicament" in question is somewhat obvious -- Dr Henry Morgentaler's ascension to the Order of Canada was clearly taken as a slight by so many social conservatives especially because individuals such as Borowski, and all the opposition they offered, have meanwhile been discarded to the scrap heap of history. For many social conservatives, the Morgentaler OoC was treated as yet another symbol of the ideological dominance the pro-abortion lobby demands on that particular issue.

Which isn't hard to understand -- many pro-abortion activists flaunted it as such.

The story of Borowski's Ttrial for Life is actually a fairly intriguing one, and could never be done justice in the course of a post about Byfield's comments. There are other times and places for that.

In this particular video, Byfield addresses a question asked concerning what social conservatives can do to reassert their influence on a government that, in the eyes of many social conservatives, has all but abandoned them.

Byfield's response is actually somewhat surprising -- although some individuals are almost perversely unembarrassed to misunderstand them.

Byfield actually opens his answer with some remarks about the importance of compromise in politics:

"I think that the Conservative government has to walk a line, as we all know, between its principles and its practical necessities. It exists through compromise. That is one of the great charms and weaknesses of the democratic system.

No single candidate, no single party, anywhere will ever completely represent what you think the government ought to do.

Therefore everyone you come to vote for is going to have to compromise on some level."

One should likely assume that Byfield is advising his audience that any political party would have to be open to compromise on their particular issues (in this case, abortion) in order to get elected and remain electable -- certainly, its these very "practical necessities" that are at the core of the Conservative move to scrap Bill C-484, offering instead a legislatively redundant alternative.

Of course, not only social conservatives have to accept compromises after an election. For all their rhetoric to the contrary, it's highly unlikely that the NDP would put a stop to the Fort MacMurray oilsands -- nor are they likely to satisfy the demands of their most extreme left-wing supporters and start nationalizing industry in Canada.

Such voters would either have to be prepared to accept the inevitable post-election compromise, or consider casting their votes for a different party -- in the NDP example, perhaps the Communist party.

Yet, as Byfield points out, too much compromise can have a negative impact on the prospects of any political party:

"However, the Harper government has to walk a very, very careful path because it assumes it has the votes of what it calls 'social conservatives'. That's you and that's me.

They will compromise as far as they can with the other side. But they will always be watching what organizations like this say about what they do. If you see them compromising too far, tell them, because they are very, very alert to any possibility of rebellion from the small-c conservative side."

Inevitably, a party has to govern at least partially to its base. While governments can take this entirely too far and alienate the rest of the electorate in doing so -- the example of George W Bush is a cogent example -- it can only remain viable so long as it remembers who elected it in the first place.

Byfield knows this well, having been front-and-centre during an episode of Canada's political history that underscores this for any politician willing to take an honest look at the federal politics of the 1990s:

"They're aware of one other thing: the old Conservative party ignored the social conservatives, and the consequence of that was the rise of the Reform party. And the consequence of that was many, many years of Liberal government, because the conservative vote split -- part to Reform, part to [Progressive] Conservative.

They don't want that to happen again.

So when you see them doing things that they are now doing and you believe goes too far away -- too much of a compromise -- tell them. Write your MP. Get on open line shows when issues like this come up. Call in. Say what you think. Because they will listen. If at any time they get the idea that they've gone too far, they'll pull back again.

My message would be to make sure the Conservative government remains a conservative government. Let them know what you think all the time."

The solution, Byfield insists, is rather simple: lobby the government. Apply pressure. Stand up for what you believe in.

And while the necessary big-tent nature of the modern Conservative party renders it unlikely that social conservatives will ever attain everything on their "wish list" from a Conservative government, the party inevitably has to respect the basic democratic prerogatives of its supporters -- namely, the right to make their views heard.

Of course, there are those who believe social conservatives should not speak -- that they should relent to going quietly into the good night.

Many of these are the same people who tried to prevent the formation of the modern Conservative party because they weren't willing to even consider the notion of discussion -- let alone compromise -- with social conservatives. Likewise, there were plenty of Reform party supporters who rejected the modern Conservative party because they, too, were unwilling to accept any compromise.

Clearly, Ted Byfield's message wasn't really meant for either one of these two camps. Instead, Byfield's message is to those social conservatives who are willing to accept compromise but aren't willing to outright capitulate.

Intriguingly, this is a message that applies equally to left-wingers with a similar predisposition. Whether or not any of them care to hear it from the former publisher of Alberta Report is another matter entirely.

Duceppe declares witch hunt in St Bruno-St Hubert

Where's Sir Leigh Teabing when you need him?

Gilles Duceppe raised the alarm about a Conservative candidate in St Bruno-St Hubert, after La Presse of Montreal revealed that Nicole Charbonneau Barron is a member of Opus Dei.

Described by many as an ultra-Conservative Catholic Order, Opus Dei was portrayed -- and villainized -- in Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Ever since the publication of the book, and especially since the release of the movie, Opus Dei has effectively become the Catholic Church's answer to Scientology -- villainized by those who despise it and defended ardently by its adherents. A fierce propaganda war has been waged between its opponents and proponents to the point where truth is entirely indistinguishable from spin.

As justification for his envokation of the controversial order, Duceppe claimed that Opus Dei's teachings "do not correspond to Quebec's modern mentality."

"Those people are certainly sharing a kind of ideology that doesn't correspond at all to modern times in Quebec," he announced. "I'm not saying they don't have the right to do so. [But] those people are against a lot of things that are allowed in Quebec."

Of course the right of Barron to hold her religious beliefs didn't dissuade Duceppe from steering his party's election campaign toward base religious intolerance. The general expectation in Canada is that political candidates will be judged not by their gender, ethnicity or religion, but by their policy platform -- or at the very least that of their party.

With his move today, Duceppe has turned away from criticizing the policy platform of the Conservatives and toward encouraging bigotry.

One wonders if perhaps there's some reason why Duceppe so desperately wants to debate something other than policy in this election campaign. With the BQ's provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois, reduced to a shambles of its former separatist glory and his own party's share of the popular vote precipitously dropping throughout a recent round of by-elections, Duceppe may be coming face to face with the reality that separatism has been rendered a spent force in Quebec -- currently capable of offering little more than empty promises and shameless fear mongering.

No wise man should rule out a future reenergizing of Quebec's sovereigntist movement -- Pierre Trudeau learned that the hard way. But at least in the present, and for the near future, Gilles Duceppe needs something to campaign on other than rendering Canada unto the ash heap of history.

Apparently, the spectre of religious bogeymen is the Holy Grail that Duceppe thinks will secure his party against a potential drubbing at the hands of a seemingly resurgent Conservative party in Quebec. Which just so happens to say a lot more about the BQ and its leader than it does about Nicole Charbonneau Barron.

However, Duceppe may actually be taking even a bigger risk than simply appearing bigoted. If conservatism in Quebec truly is as resurgent as recent polls have suggested it may be, Duceppe may have a lot to lose by taking aim at its traditional handmaiden in Quebec, the Catholic Church.

Few politicians have gotten ahead in Quebec by directly attacking the Church, and given the direct historical links between Catholicism and the embers of nationalist sentiment his party has always sought to fan into separatist flame, Dion may find himself getting burned by the fire he's choosing to play with.

Or, Duceppe could just call up Dr Robert Langdon for a good-old-fashioned Grail quest -- that is, if he wasn't a fictional character.

Tories decline to run candidate in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier

With Quebec seemingly poised to grant the Conservative party a few more seats (depending upon whom you ask), one would think that the Conservatives would be going for broke in La Belle Province.

Apparently not so, as Independent MP Andre Arthur will find the task of being reelected in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier a little easier. The Conservatives have decided not to run a candidate there.

The rationale behind this decision is reportedly deciding not to split the federalist vote in the riding, allowing the BQ to pick up a seat. Even with the sovereigntist movement in Quebec splintering, a federalist candidate like Arthur can use every bit of help he can get.

"I'm like a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning and finds something under the tree," Arthur said. "Who am I to say it's not a good idea to make a gift like that to me."

It probably helps that Arthur is at least sympathetic to the Conservatives. "I think Harper has given us something that we haven't seen in Canada in the last 50 years," he said. "For the first time we've had a government that says what it does and does what it says."

Deciding not to run a candidate against Arthur may also be indirect retaliation against Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, who echoed increasingly typically Liberal calls for left-of-centre voters to vote strategically in order to prevent a Conservative majority.

The message in Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier is cystal clear: vote for Andre Arthur to prevent a Bloc MP.

For his own part, Gilles Duceppe has sunk to the lowest common denominator in his quest to deny the Conservative party additional seats, dropping the B-word (Bush) in a campaign stop in Montreal.

"The Conservatives of Stephen Harper have an ideological vision inspired by that of George W Bush," Duceppe insisted, then actually tried to dig deeper in his quest to equate the Conservatives with what he considers to be a vile ideological figure. "The Reform party is there, hiding under the skirts of the Conservative Party, but more and more it is showing itself."

Of course, the Reform party has never tried to break up Canada with a racially divisive ideology as its foundation, unlike some other parties in Canada...

As the campaign gears up, there remain serious questions about whether or not the Bloc can really stop a Conservative majority.

In the meantime, however, the Conservatives have put the federalist cause in Quebec ahead of their own interests. It isn't that surprising -- it's what Stephen Harper has done ever since he took office.

Tories step up attack in counter-branding effort

Along with three enthusiasm-themed ads (discussed earlier today), the Conservative party released three negative ads directed at the policies of Liberal rival Stephane Dion.



In almost comical fashion, the Conservatives are seeking to portray Dion as a gamble for Canada. The first ad features a "Scratch n' lose" lottery ticket, portraying Dion's policies as a "triple threat" to Canadians.

In the first ad, the Conservatives press Dion over musing about hiking the GST, eliminating the Conservative $1200 per year childcare plan and the carbon tax.

On all three propositions, the Conservatives insist, Canadians lose.



In the second ad -- this time featuring a one-armed bandit -- the Conservatives raise the prospect of higher gas prices, grocery bills and increased cost of virtually all consumer goods under Stephane Dion.

As the unseen gambler continues to play the machine, each pull comes up Stephane Dion -- and each pull comes up as a loss.



In the third ad, the Conservatives use the imagrey of a craps table to address Dion's various flip-flops regarding carbon taxation -- noting that Dion was against it as a Liberal leadership candidate, suddenly for it as Liberal leader, and unwilling to commit to specific policy points -- or even release them for public consideration.

As the unseen shooter throws four dice, they continually come up spelling "DION", featuring a clip of Dion making contradictory policy statements just before the dealer continually pulls them away.

On the final throw, the dice instead come up spelling "RISK".

The ads in question are a slick counter-branding effort, likely prepared months in advance and just waiting until the Liberals released their first pro-Green Shift ad.

Not only do the ads counter Liberal party policy proposals with reasons for some sobering second thought, but they also continue to counter what is becoming a common assesment of conservatives -- that they lack a sense of humour.

The ads are also presciently themed. With the kinds of changes Stephane Dion wants to make to the Canadian tax structure, there is no question that Canadians voting for Stephane Dion are taking a real gamble. These Conservative ads should prove to be rather effective, as they're merely reminding Canadians of things they already know.

Conservative party continues its branding effort

Today, the Conservative party released a staggering six new campaign ads.

The ads fall distinctly into two categories: enthusiasm-baed spots, aimed at encouraging people to feel good about the prospects of voting Conservative, and negative ads, designed to make people think twice about voting for Stephane Dion and his Liberal party.

(Negative ads are considered distinct from attack ads because they address policy points as opposed to the personality points of a candidate.)

For the purpose of analyzing their role in the now-ongoing election, the two categories of ads will be considered separately.



This particular ad takes a page out of the old John Diefenbaker playbook and promises continued efforts to deal with arctic sovereignty.

In 1958, John Diefenbaker campaigned on the issue of arctic poverty and transformed his minority government into one of the most dominant majorities seen in Canadian history (he also followed it with a minority government that survived for less than a year before being defeated by Lester Pearson and the Liberals).

With this particular ad, Harper is trying to re-brand himself and his party as the party that cares about arctic issues. While Harper's campaigning on the issue of arctic sovereignty was a welcome prospect in the last election, Michael Byers and the NDP seized the initiative on arctic issues in the days leading up to the campaign, counter-branding the government as missing the big picture.

Of course, with the United States, a newly more aggressive Russia and other countries trying to stake claim to the Northwest Passage, arctic sovereignty will be an important issue in this election.



With both the Liberals and NDP fielding candidates percieved as foreign policy heavyweights (legitimately in the case of Michael Ignatieff and not-so-legitimately in the case of the aforementioned Michael Byers), the Conservatives needed to stake out foreign policy early in the election.

In this particular ad, Harper simply talks about the need to have "real capabilities" to "contribute to global security [and] humanitarian development".

"This country has to stand for something," Harper insists.

Yet, as a branding effort, this spot may be less effective than the Tories may have hoped. After all, it's one thing to insist that Canada should stand for something. It's entirely another to actually know what that "something" is.



The third enthusiasm-themed ad seems to be a re-branding attempt following an NDP ad portraying the Conservative government's tax cuts as being bad for Canadians.

Harper once again points to "global economic uncertainty" (something that is quickly emerging as a theme of the Conservative campaign), and insists that, while the government has cut taxes, it has ensured that new spending will benefit "ordinary families".

To be able to attempt to brand oneself while simultaneously counter-branding the opposition is an advantage that inevitably comes with having more money to spend than the opposition.

Layton getting awfully cozy with oft-despised Americans

To adopt the old parlance from sports to politics, "everyone wants to be like Barack".

It doesn't have quite the same snap as "everyone wants to be like Mike", but when assessing the state of left-wing politics in at least North America today, it holds true.

Just like anyone who ever even touched a basketball wanted to emulate the then-best-known athlete in the world, anyone who's ever embraced progressive politics wants desperately to emulate the man who is currently the best-known politician in the world today.

Certainly, Jack Layton wants to be like Barack. One need look no further than the theme of the 2008 NDP campaign: change.

It certainly doesn't hurt that Jack Layton attended the 2008 Democratic National Convention, either. For a party all too often content to accuse their opponents of importing American policies and American values, it seems that Jack Layton is utterly unafraid to get good and cozy with the "empire" to the south -- particularly with a Presidential candidate whose rightward shift promises little global reprieve from the "imperialist" policies the NDP so often denounces as abhorrent.

Of course, this particular paradox is nothing new for the NDP. Consider commentary offered by journalist Ian King about NDP House leader Libby Davies.

The episode in question involves Davies taking CBC veteran reporter Terry Milewski to Seattle to attend some anti-war protests there. Afterward, Davies brought anti-war protester Ann Wright back across the border.

As King notes, "There is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of the American “anti-war” movement, with all its attached hangups over Vietnam and line-by-line reuse of symbols and slogans from the time."

Add that to the fact that the anti-war movement in the United States -- preoccupied first and foremost with the Iraq conflict -- are ill-suited to address the state of affairs in Canada in regards to the Afghanistan conflict, which has been sanctioned by the United Nations, putting the lie to insistence that the war is "illegal", as opposed to the Iraq war which enjoys no such sanction and so arguably is illegal.

Not to mention that the Vietnam-era rhetoric being employed by Iraqi war resisters in Canada is also ill-suited to their obligation to participate in a war they volunteered to fight in (for good or ill).

Likewise, there is nothing Canadian about the wholesale importation of Obama-esque rhetoric into Canada, no matter how much the NDP wants to, or the Liberal party wishes they could.

Certainly, there's nothing un-Canadian about looking to political movements in other countries for inspiration, but therein lies the rub.

If it isn't un-Canadian for Jack Layton and the New Democrats (as Layton emphasizes it) to look south of the border for inspiration, then it isn't un-Canadian for the Conservative party to do likewise.

While the current state of affairs in the United States should serve as a cautionary tale to the Conservative party to remain very careful about which inspirations to act on and which to reject, for the NDP or their partisans to accuse the Conservatives of being un-Canadian for doing so isn't only engaging in some inherently silly rhetoric, it's also being incredibly dishonest.

Of course Jack Layton isn't really an agent of American Imperialism. To insist so is just plain silly. But, like stupid, silly is as silly does.

If Jack Layton wants to continue indulging himself in silly rhetoric that panders to cross-border partisan parochialism, he may want to remember this:

He could always reap that particular whirlwind.

It's official -- federal election set for Oct 14

"Between now and Oct. 14, Canadians will choose a government to look out for their interests at a time of global economic trouble," Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today, shortly after asking Governor General Michaelle Jean to dissolve parliament.

The move came amidst questions over whether or not such an election call would be illegal according to Harper's own fixed date election law.

In calling this election, Harper has pulled the trigger on what he's predicted will be a "nasty" election.

"To be really honest, I anticipate a very nasty, kind of personal-attack campaign," Harper mused. "That's just what I'm anticipating; that's what the opposition's done in the past. I think that whether Canadians agree with what we're doing or not, I don't think they're going to believe the kind of personal attacks and scare tactics that we've seen in the past."

For his own part, Liberal leader Stephane Dion has already started the partisan ideological wrangling typical of his party at election time.

"Stephen Harper formed the most conservative government in our history," Dion insisted.

Which, unfortunately for Dion, is historically untrue. In terms of conservatism, Harper's government could never hold a candle to the government of William Lyon Mackenzie King, among others.

Certainly, Harper's government has been the most Conservative seen in more than fifty years, but that's really only in contrast to what many would consider the runaway statism of previous governments -- including previous Conservative (Progressive Conservative) governments.

Jack Layton, fresh off his visit to the Democratic National Convention, has taken a page out of Barack Obama's playbook and promised to be the candidate for change.

"I'll act on the priorities of your kitchen table not just the boardroom table," he promised.

Last (and least) Elizabeth May portrayed her party as an alternative to the three national parties that have actually managed to -- you know -- actually elect Members of Parliament.

Her race against Deputy Prime Minister Peter MacKay will be one of the key battlegrounds in the election. Ironically, she'll be depending on heavy support from partians of one of the mainstream parties, as the Liberals will not run a candidate against her.

Many Canadians likely find themselves somewhere between disappointed and angry to be facing an election right now.

However, there is one bright side to this election. Not only will Canadians elect their leaders before the Presidential race is settled, one can safely assume that Michael Moore will be keeping his mouth busy with American politics for the duration of the Canadian election.

Thank god for small favours, one supposes.