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.
Showing posts with label NDP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NDP. Show all posts
19% of Canadians -- and counting -- can
As the 2008 federal election progresses, it seems that Liberal leader Stephane Dion may be sho' nuff fucked.
With Stephen Harper's Conservative party comfortably in control of this election with 38% support, Dion's Liberals are polling at 23% -- a narrow lead over Jack Layton's NDP, who are polling at 19%.
"Although it is clear that the Liberals retain a small edge, on some days the difference is within the margin of error," said Ekos president Frank Graves.
In other words, the Stephane Dion Liberals are statistically tied with the NDP.
This comes as Dion gathers his former leadership rivals around him for campaign help.
Which he could certainly use. After all, as the campaign progresses, some of Dion's star candidates are nowhere to be seen -- in particular, Michael Ignatieff has inexplicably been a non-entity during this election campaign.
It seems even perennial insufferable douchebag Scott Reid can figure this one out.
Whether even the combined popularity of Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Ken Dryden and Martha Hall Findlay (among others) can save Dion at this point is anyone's guess. (You were going to make a "Kermit De Frog" joke here, weren't you? I have a sixth sense for these things. -Ed)
...Unless, of course, there's a reason why some of his higher-profile "team members" don't seem to be so eager to be seen with him.
An election result with the Liberals being punted from the status of Official Opposition in favour of the NDP would unquestionably turf any further leadership ambitions on Dion's behalf. The smart money says that any one of these individuals would absolutely love to play hero and lead the Liberal party out of the dredges of third-party status and back into the government benches.
Which would, of course, cast the Jamie Carroll affair in a whole new light.
Carroll, as some may recall, resigned as the national director of the Liberal party over outrage over comments he made about the backroom deals being made in the name of the leadership ambitions of Dion's rivals.
Of course, before anyone can even begin to worry about that, they have to worry about the current election. The Liberals still have almost a month to turn this thing around.
"If the alarm bells are not ringing already at Liberal headquarters, they should now," Graves says.
The question is: are those alarm bells being heard?
As the 2008 federal election progresses, it seems that Liberal leader Stephane Dion may be sho' nuff fucked.
With Stephen Harper's Conservative party comfortably in control of this election with 38% support, Dion's Liberals are polling at 23% -- a narrow lead over Jack Layton's NDP, who are polling at 19%.
"Although it is clear that the Liberals retain a small edge, on some days the difference is within the margin of error," said Ekos president Frank Graves.
In other words, the Stephane Dion Liberals are statistically tied with the NDP.
This comes as Dion gathers his former leadership rivals around him for campaign help.
Which he could certainly use. After all, as the campaign progresses, some of Dion's star candidates are nowhere to be seen -- in particular, Michael Ignatieff has inexplicably been a non-entity during this election campaign.
It seems even perennial insufferable douchebag Scott Reid can figure this one out.
Whether even the combined popularity of Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Ken Dryden and Martha Hall Findlay (among others) can save Dion at this point is anyone's guess. (You were going to make a "Kermit De Frog" joke here, weren't you? I have a sixth sense for these things. -Ed)
...Unless, of course, there's a reason why some of his higher-profile "team members" don't seem to be so eager to be seen with him.
An election result with the Liberals being punted from the status of Official Opposition in favour of the NDP would unquestionably turf any further leadership ambitions on Dion's behalf. The smart money says that any one of these individuals would absolutely love to play hero and lead the Liberal party out of the dredges of third-party status and back into the government benches.
Which would, of course, cast the Jamie Carroll affair in a whole new light.
Carroll, as some may recall, resigned as the national director of the Liberal party over outrage over comments he made about the backroom deals being made in the name of the leadership ambitions of Dion's rivals.
Of course, before anyone can even begin to worry about that, they have to worry about the current election. The Liberals still have almost a month to turn this thing around.
"If the alarm bells are not ringing already at Liberal headquarters, they should now," Graves says.
The question is: are those alarm bells being heard?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Potential leadership challenger Michael Byers waiting in the wings
In 2006, NDP leader Jack Layton led his party from a meagre 18 seat caucus to prey upon Liberal weakness and return 29 Members of Parliament.
The eventual by-election victory of Thomas Mulcair in Outremont -- a Liberal stronghold riding formerly held by Pierre Trudeau brought the NDP up to a respectable total of 30 seats.
With the 2008 federal election now underway, however, it seems the pressure on Layton could be as intense as ever. If he fails to make further gains or (worse yet) loses seats, it seems the NDP's candidate in Vancouver-Centre, Michael Byers, may decide to make a run for the NDP leadership.
According to the Georgia Strait's Charlie Smith, the entrance of BC Liberal MLA Lorne Mayencourt as a federal Conservative candidate may have put Byers in the driver's seat in Vancouver-Centre.
Mayencourt, currently representing the provincial riding of Vancouver-Berard, may siphon enough conservative Liberals discontented with the carbon tax to potentially unseat Hedy Fry.
According to Smith, if Mayencourt manages to attract as much as 20 percent of the ridings voters -- based on appeal to pro-free enterprise gays and lesbians and the law-and-order vote -- and Green candidate Adrianne Carr (formerly a provincial Green party leader) can attract 15-20% of the vote in the riding, either Byers or Fry could claim a victory with just over 30% of the vote.
Smith predicts that Byers could do even better than that, winning 35% of the vote if Jack Layton runs a good, solid campaign. Even if Layton doesn't run a good campaign -- and there's no reason to expect he won't -- Byers is still a definite contender in the contest.
Byers seems to understand this, as well. Byers didn't even wait for the campaign to begin before taking the fight to Hedy Fry.
Certainly, a successful campaign by Layton would benefit Byers at least in the short term. However, such a successful campaign could only put off any leadership amitions Byers may have.
However, should the NDP campaign flounder federally, Jack Layton will almost certainly find himself subject to a leadership review. Should disgruntled New Democrats decide to ouster Layton as leader, a Byers victory in Vancouver-Centre -- toppling the giant killer who once slew Prime Minister Kim Campbell -- would make him a tough opponent to beat.
Not that the NDP is guaranteed to be well-served by Byers' leadership. He has a tendency to make narrow ideological foreign policy statements that fail to stand up to scrutiny.
But if Byers wants to follow Michael Ignatieff's lead into federal politics, he may as well do it in style. And while it may be unbecoming for Byers to be keeping his fingers crossed for the failure of his party leader, one can't help but wonder if that isn't exactly what's on his wish list for the 2008 federal election.
In 2006, NDP leader Jack Layton led his party from a meagre 18 seat caucus to prey upon Liberal weakness and return 29 Members of Parliament.
The eventual by-election victory of Thomas Mulcair in Outremont -- a Liberal stronghold riding formerly held by Pierre Trudeau brought the NDP up to a respectable total of 30 seats.
With the 2008 federal election now underway, however, it seems the pressure on Layton could be as intense as ever. If he fails to make further gains or (worse yet) loses seats, it seems the NDP's candidate in Vancouver-Centre, Michael Byers, may decide to make a run for the NDP leadership.According to the Georgia Strait's Charlie Smith, the entrance of BC Liberal MLA Lorne Mayencourt as a federal Conservative candidate may have put Byers in the driver's seat in Vancouver-Centre.
Mayencourt, currently representing the provincial riding of Vancouver-Berard, may siphon enough conservative Liberals discontented with the carbon tax to potentially unseat Hedy Fry.
According to Smith, if Mayencourt manages to attract as much as 20 percent of the ridings voters -- based on appeal to pro-free enterprise gays and lesbians and the law-and-order vote -- and Green candidate Adrianne Carr (formerly a provincial Green party leader) can attract 15-20% of the vote in the riding, either Byers or Fry could claim a victory with just over 30% of the vote.
Smith predicts that Byers could do even better than that, winning 35% of the vote if Jack Layton runs a good, solid campaign. Even if Layton doesn't run a good campaign -- and there's no reason to expect he won't -- Byers is still a definite contender in the contest.
Byers seems to understand this, as well. Byers didn't even wait for the campaign to begin before taking the fight to Hedy Fry.Certainly, a successful campaign by Layton would benefit Byers at least in the short term. However, such a successful campaign could only put off any leadership amitions Byers may have.
However, should the NDP campaign flounder federally, Jack Layton will almost certainly find himself subject to a leadership review. Should disgruntled New Democrats decide to ouster Layton as leader, a Byers victory in Vancouver-Centre -- toppling the giant killer who once slew Prime Minister Kim Campbell -- would make him a tough opponent to beat.
Not that the NDP is guaranteed to be well-served by Byers' leadership. He has a tendency to make narrow ideological foreign policy statements that fail to stand up to scrutiny.
But if Byers wants to follow Michael Ignatieff's lead into federal politics, he may as well do it in style. And while it may be unbecoming for Byers to be keeping his fingers crossed for the failure of his party leader, one can't help but wonder if that isn't exactly what's on his wish list for the 2008 federal election.
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.
"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.
Counter-branding effort begins
In the 2005/06 federal election, many people hoped Jack Layton and the NDP would play softball with the Liberals, hardball with the Conservatives, and keep Stephen Harper out of office.
Instead, the NDP focused their efforts on the Liberals, shrank the Liberal caucus returned to the House of Commons, and -- some say -- helped Stephen Harper get elected Prime Minister.
Of course, Layton understood well what he was doing when he targeted the Liberal party -- he was attracting disaffected soft Liberals to support the NDP instead.
Now, less than a day before the call of a 2008 federal election, the NDP has once again chosen to err on the side of the opposition, releasing a new attack ad against Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
Following a trip to the Democratic National Convention, Layton seems to have decided to adopt the kind of strategy that helped deny Al Gore the White House in 2000 -- portraying the two mainstream parties as lacking in meaningful differences.
The ad takes aim at the Conservative party tax cuts (taking note of "$50 billion in corporate tax cuts" while strategically ignoring the tax cuts for middle- and low-income Canadians), and taking a page out of the old Liberal party playbook by complaining about child poverty.
The ad addresses one in five Canadians who reportedly don't have a family doctor and, predictably, the Fort MacMurray tarsands.
This ad follows a recent round of branding ads by the Conservative party, and are thus an excellent example of an attempt at counter-branding. In this case, branding the party as bad for low-income Canadians, cutting corporate taxes at their direct expense.
However, those who pay close attention to the ads will notice something else: a striking resemblance to the infamous 2006 Liberal attack ads, including the one that helped sink their entire campaign, featuring heavily drum-laden music and even the same woman providing the voice-over.
In the end, Jack Layton appears against an NDP orange backdrop, and concludes that Canadians need "a new kind of strong". "The new strong is about fighting for what's right for you," Layton says. Presumably, the kind of strong leadership that will be provided by Jack Layton and the NDP.
Of course, this depends all on how one defines "strong", and perhaps that's the real genius of the ad -- challenging what many people consider to be "strong" leadership, and taking direct aim at the legion of polls that find that Canadians regard Harper as the best of the country's federal political leaders.
It's an interesting mix of political strategy: simultaneously attacking the Conservatives' biggest weaknesses and what many consider to be their greatest strength.
With Liberal spots sure to hit the air within the next couple of days, this impending election is apparently going to start hot.
All we need now is an election call.
