Musings on Robocalls

At this point, can we avoid falling into a state where political power is seized rather than awarded by the public?

The only way we can maintain good governance is to soundly reject the many corrupt practices of the Harper government: but how do we do that with three years left on their majority rule? Time and again they have been exposed and have gotten away with it. Even when Elections Canada found them guilty of In & Out, they paid no political price. Each time they get away with something, they are emboldened to go further and be more unscrupulous. Each time Harper shrugs off one of these scandals, his supporters get the message that this is the way they should operate.

Sharing the world's longest border with the anti-democratic cess pool that is the United States doesn't help. American politics is a never-ending source of inspiration for the corrupt, and still surpasses Canada in so many ways: gerrymandering, lobbying, campaign finance... We need to stop looking south, and adopt other jurisdictions as our sense of normal.

###

The Embarrassing Past of a Kettle and Pot

The ever-astute Elizabeth May has a theory. She thinks Harper is going to call an election this fall, even though he's down in the polls. She believes that Harper is focused on voter turnout rather than ratings, and that his strategy has been to reduce voter participation outside his base.

In the 2008 election campaign, she maintained, Mr. Harper purposely drove down voter participation in several ways. He called a snap election, he had the minimum numbers of days for a campaign, he had election day right after the long Thanksgiving weekend, he had changes in the Elections Act that meant people couldn’t vote without additional ID, and his attack ads had increased cynicism toward politics. The result was that every party’s total vote number went down, except the Green Party’s. The Liberals’ dropped the most and Mr. Harper was able to increase his minority.

. . .

Everybody thinks Mr. Harper’s right-wing manoeuvring, like his move on the census, has been disastrous, Ms. May said. "I bet he doesn’t think so. For his base, which is essentially the tea party of Canada, these are good messages."

May predicts that Harper's got a bunch of devastating attack ads to use against Michael Ignatieff, and that he'll unveil them during the campaign. They will include footage of Ignatieff before becoming Liberal party leader.

An example, she said, is some incredible statements the Liberal Leader made on torture when he appeared once on the Charlie Rose show. "The Conservatives must have a video archive of him saying things that Harper believes will make him unelectable." The Prime Minister is saving them for the campaign because "he wants the shock value."

This tactic could work if Harper gets the timing right and prevents Ignatieff from having time to respond or recover. In the 2006 election a fake scandal invented by the NDP sewered Paul Martin; Martin was bouncing back from it, but he didn't have time before the election to recover enough, and it wasn't until months after the election that the scandal was fully debunked.

Or is it possible? Harper himself has recovered from revelations of his saying far worse things than Igantieff ever said. Harper, after all, denounced Canada as a "Northern welfare state in the worst sense of the term." In that speech he also spat on universal health care, women’s rights, the unemployed, francophone Canadians and all Canadian political parties, including his own.

###

Thank Heavens for Dalton McGuinty

Think back a few years to when Harper first ascended to be our PM. He went out of his way to insult Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and promote then-Ontario Conservative leader John Tory. On Harper's first visit to Ontario he snubbed McGuinty, refusing to meet with him, met with Tory, and criticized McGuinty.

I was not surprised by Harper's act, as such nastiness is typical of him (though outrageous), but I was really surprised by McGuinty's reaction: he just kept his head down and continued to try to forge a relationship with Harper - or at least that's how it seemed to me. Over the years he's plugged away at it, and it has paid off for Ontario.

Ontario is hugely under-represented in federal parliament, and last year Harper proposed a bill that changed the composition of parliament, but added too few Ontario seats and too many seats elsewhere. McGuinty opposed the move and the bill stalled. Now Harper has announced a much better composition; instead of adding ten more seats in Ontario, we're getting 21 more, resulting in a much fairer distribution. (Details here.)

Unlike the US, Canada doesn't allow gerrymandering so we don't have to worry about that. The only threat was a government that tried to provide over-representation in its areas of support - which is exactly what Harper tried to do. But after a year of negotiation, the final compostiion seems pretty fair.

I like McGuinty. He's low-key and competent, and he's an effective advocate for Ontario. Would that more politicians had less ego and more focus on an agenda for the people.

###

The Count Gets Dissed

There have been several scathing criticisms of Michael Ignatieff lately. I'll take on three:

* Ignatieff has 'put absolutely nothing on the table,' say Liberal insiders by Abbas Rana in the Hill Times, Sept 21.
* For Liberals, new leader, same losing scenario by Chantal Hebert in The Star, Sept 18.
* Tired rhetoric, and not much more by Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe & Mail, Sept 23.

The basic complaint is that Ignatieff has not put out enough policy detail yet. They argue that, had there been an election, he would have been unprepared. However:

* There wasn't an election. Call him lucky or crazy like a fox, Ignatieff has managed to stop propping up the government without an unpopular election and he has manoeuvered the NDP on to the hot seat. This may have been a Mulroneyesque rolling of the dice: whatever, we're in a much better position than we were a month ago, in lots of ways - just one of which is to bleed support from the NDP.
* He has been leader less than a year. In that time he has achieved the vital goal of raising a lot of money. Now he's starting an ad campaign, starting to get more specific about policy - give him some room, folks! I don't see any problem with his timing.
* The biggest mistake Dion made was to unveil his election platform too early. When he announced the Green Shift everyone was anxious about global warming. By the time the election was called we had had the biggest financial crisis in our lifetimes and were facing the biggest depression in history. Everyone was more concerned about the economy, yet Liberals were stuck talking about something else. Timing is vital. Ignatieff needs to be prepared to talk policy in an election, but he doesn't have to spell it all out in advance.

Jeffrey Simpson also complains that Ignatieff hasn't distinguished himself sufficiently from Harper. I find this line of reasoning to be totally specious. Prime Minister Ignatieff would have a totally different effect on Canada than Prime Minister Harper; to say they are indistinguishable is absurd. Don't forget that Harper was going to cut the budget this year and enact no fiscal stimulus until forced to by the coalition. If you think there's no difference between the two leaders, talk to the thousands of young people languishing in jails under Harper's US-style legal "reforms". Talk to the women who can no longer get any legal assistance in fighting abuse and wage discrimination. Talk to the arts groups that are no longer funded. Look at how our allies view us after the long series of screw-ups by the incompetent people Harper puts in his cabinet so he can run the show himself. And that doesn't even mention the areas that Harper is neglecting: Ignatieff is probably the best person in the world to address our long-standing disunity issues.

(btw, Harper has also been coming in for some pretty snarky dissing of late, at least in the Globe. See Tories spend five times more on budget ads than flu plan and Harper makes donut run (Harper skips Obama's speech at UN to go to Tim Hortons).)

###

Some Thoughts on Elections

On the one hand...

1. When Ignatieff doesn't support the government, he's accused of forcing an election - causing support for the Liberals to drop a few points.

2. New leaders historically need a couple of years to get up to speed, even when they're more experienced than Ignatieff.

3. Our last election was less than a year ago, and we have had a lot of elections in the last few years.

On the other hand...

1b. When Ignatieff doesn't force an election, he is accused of "propping up Harper." There are lots of good arguments that can be made to the public for why an election is needed. Like these. We just need to sell it better.

2b. Ignatieff has been leader of the party for eight months now, and he's settling in pretty well.

3b. Under Harper, a minority government is bound to be unstable. Plus, he will call an election as soon as is politically advantageous for him - he's still working flat-out to get a majority.

The path to electoral success seems to hinge on taking control: in terms of setting the election date to an opportune time for us; in terms of being seen to be in control; and in terms of better framing the issues.

###

Why a Fall Election is the Right Way to Go

1. It's time for a Prime Minister who can lead all Canadians, not just a narrow base in Alberta. Harper hasn't even bothered to unite his own party. He has repeatedly characterized Quebec voters as un-Canadian. He has expressed contempt for every citizen east of Manitoba. He reviles the values of most Canadians.

Harper is a formidable foe because his Alberta base ensures that his party has by far the most money to spend. He uses that money on negative, character-based attacks on his opponents, and these attacks have been very successful. As his mentors in the US Republican party have discovered, lies are very effective in undermining your opponents.

2. Last December, Harper pulled such an egregious stunt that he lost the confidence of Canadian parliament. Since he did this a month after an election, an immediate election was not an option and the opposition parties were forced to form a coalition to replace him. Unfortunately, the leader of the official opposition proved himself to be not up to the task of leading the coalition government and had to be replaced. The new leader needed some time to get up to speed. Ever since last December, Harper's government is alive only until Ignatieff is ready to go. Now, Ignatieff is ready to go.

3. To stay in power, a minority government must be propped up by the opposition. This requires that a minority Prime Minister must work with the opposition, or at least with some portion of it. Harper has chosen not to do that, and hence he has teetered during his entire tenure as PM. The instability of the government is all down to Harper. The Liberals and NDP have reached out to him, and in response he has spat at them. Consequently, the decision to topple him is forced on the opposition and their job is merely to pick the most advantageous time. As to when the most advantageous time is, the political experts seem to think it's now.

4. Last fall, Harper broke his own rules and commitment to fixed election terms, and called an election at a time advantageous to himself - another month or two and he wouldn't have been able to keep the deficit figures from the public and the election result would have been quite different. The opposition must take control of the game or we're doomed to a series of weak, unpopular, minority Conservative governments.

5. Harper is still up to his Nixonian scheming, trying to subvert democracy. Years ago he let it be known that his strategy is to beat the Liberals by bankrupting them. He's still at it, with his latest scheme involving trying to force the Liberals to pay retroactive GST fees. There is no reason why the opposition should continue to let him pull these sleazy stunts. Furthermore, the incompetence of the Harper cabinet has led to serious consequences and it is the obligation of the opposition to put an end to it, for the good of all Canadians.

Under Harper's control, the Conservative party has become a gang of thugs, sleazebags and imbeciles. Harper's need to control everything has resulted in a weak and scandal-prone cabinet. Canadians died because of secretive attempts to reduce food safety inspections; the trust of our allies was diminished by a cabinet minister who left NATO document at his mafia-connected girlfriend's house. It just goes on and on, and Harper doesn't seem to be learning or improving. Time to go.

See also: My thoughts before last year’s election

###

Character Assassination

Michael Ignatieff has been nothing but responsible since taking over as leader of the Liberal party. He has given his overt support to the government. When he has put pressure on the government, he has explained exactly what the issues are; he has chosen serious issues; and he has behaved respectfully and thoughtfully.

Nonetheless, the Conservative party has launched a massive negative ad campaign, spending $750,000 per week to try to trash Michael Ignatieff's character. They paint him as a power-hungry opportunist. They make it seem like Ignatieff is trying to rush into an election, when the opposite is just the case: he turned his back on the coalition and supported Harper. For heaven's sake, he has only had a few months to rebuild the Liberal party and we are not even ready to fight an election.

The ads twist reality in more ways than one. Not only do they paint an untrue picture of Ignatieff, but they totally distort the reality of politics. Every political leader is trying to win more seats; if they weren't they would be bad leaders. There is nothing evil about playing to win. (If there were, Stephen Harper would be Beelzebub himself.)

As a member of the Liberal party, I protest this continuing character assassination of whoever we choose as leader. The Conservative party under Stephen Harper has become a US neocon-style attack organization, seeking to dupe the public and distort the system rather than win on their own merits. Federal politics has been hijacked by a bunch of right-wing Albertan donors who are willing to turn Canadian politics into a game of hate. It was bad enough when they spent millions making fun of Stephane Dion's Gallic shrug; now it's just gone too far. Enough is enough.

The truth about our current situation is this: last fall Harper behaved so badly that he lost the confidence of Parliament, which formed a coalition to replace him as Prime Minister. Michael Ignatieff stepped in and supported Harper on the condition that Harper handle the recession in a reasonable manner. There are serious questions about whether Harper has met his end of the bargain. Ignatieff could overthrow Harper at any time, but instead of doing so, he is negotiating with Harper to try to improve the government's economic performance.

For the first few weeks the Conservative attack ads had no effect, but slowly they are taking root in the minds of Canadians. For example, a recent commenter in the Globe wrote, "Mr. Ignatieff is only in this for himself. ...He wants to be Prime Minister and will do whatever it takes to force an election." You hear that more and more. Rational argument is ultimately useless in the face of a good PR firm and a huge budget. The Liberal party has resisted the temptation to fight back with their own negative ads, which I applaud. A compelling reason for an early election is to end the Harper Hate campaign before it can become fully effective.

###

Five Good Reasons to Have a Summer Election

Michael Ignatieff is spending his weekend reviewing the government's economic performance and will announce his decision about calling an election tomorrow, Monday. He is the one who has to decide, but here are some reasons to go for a summer election...

1. Economic mismanagement of the recession
According to the 22 mayors, Harper is flat-out lying when he says that stimulus money is getting to the designated projects. The mayors say the government is dragging its feet so egregiously that they won't be able to spend the money till next summer.

Stimulus money has to be spent now. Spent now, it will give the economy a boost and help us out of the recession. Spent next summer, it could add to inflation. Not acting responsibly is going to cost us big-time down the road. We can't continue with the neo-con ideology-based negligence of Harper/Flaherty.

For God's sake... Under Harper, Ontario has turned into a have-not province! That wasn't an accident. He has never hidden his disdain for Ontario; at the start he seemed to delight in slighting us.

Now more than ever we need responsible economic leadership, and in Canada that means Liberal. (As I have said many times, the Liberals are never able to adequately balance economic responsibility and social progressiveness, but they're the only party even trying.)

2. Lack of help for the unemployed
Half of unemployed Canadians are ineligible for EI. (If I were unemployed I would be ineligible, even though I contribute and have worked the requisite hours.) There are gross inequities across the country in how many hours you need to have worked to get EI, and in how many weeks you can collect it.

This isn't something to start talking about; this is something we need to fix fast - or at least put in temporary measures. EI is anathema to Harper, who calls Canada a "social welfare state in the worst sense of the word" and thinks the unemployed are lazy and criminal. Meanwhile we have a human crisis unfolding all around us... and that hardship is going to further drag down the economy and cost us in the long run.

3. Counter the hate
The Conservatives are spending $750,000 per week to run negative ads attacking the character of Michael Ignatieff. So far their ads are having no effect, but eventually that kind of money and that kind of character-based assault will start to take effect. We let Harper's US-style neo-con politics of hate destroy one Liberal leader; we don't have to pretend that they're playing by gentleman's rules. Let's get mad and take them down.

4. The polls show that Canadians want a change
Canadians - especially the over 50% of Canadians living in Ontario and Quebec - no longer support Stephen Harper. They're fed up and they want a change. A summer election would be a tough fight but it's the right thing to do.

5. An election will provide a good jolt of stimulus
People complain that elections are expensive, but what we need right now is a good jolt of money into the pockets of the unemployed, underemployed, and people living on fixed incomes who are hurting from the stock market crash. An election would be excellent stimulus, providing tens of thousands of part-time jobs.

###

One Woman's Take on the Federal Election

The looming possibility of a Conservative majority seems too awful to contemplate. I would argue that Canadians would never let that happen; I would argue that the idea is insane, and yet pollsters and pundits say that it is very likely that in a mere month that horrible dystopia may be upon us. (See James Laxer for a description of what might befall us if Harper gets that majority.) There's nothing we can do because the fate of the country is apparently in the hands of Quebec.

Normally I would be following the election campaign in great detail, but I can't stand listening to any of the major party leaders. Harper, with that sickly fake smile and hard cold eyes, is the worst, or maybe tied with Duceppe, who seems erratic and manic. Layton seems increasingly like a strutting popinjay, and insincere to boot. I try to like Dion, and he's much better than he used to be, but his fractured English still makes me wince. And none of them are saying anything terribly interesting.

Normally I would rejoice in the recent Tory gaffes, but the Puffin pooping and so on seem too much like stuff that could happen to anyone.

It's not like I'm indifferent to the issues. I'm worried about health care, the economy, the environment, Afghanistan, the northwest passage. I want a government that will repair our hiways and bridges, improve transit, fix the CRTC, raise the top tax brackets, foster a healthy economy, deal with crime in a way that doesn't lock people up unless it's neceessary. I want a federal government that will treat Ontario fairly. I want a government that will address the most pressing environmental initiatives: fast-tracking environmental improvements in the oil sands and reducing Ontario energy consumption so we can close our coal-fired generators. I want new, decent-paying jobs to replace ones lost in the crumbling manufacturing sector. I want stronger, smarter, better enforced corporate regulations.

I want a government with vision, vibrancy, intelligence and competence. Not more crafty politicos who work to hold on to power - but committed leaders. When was the last time we had that in a federal government? Trudeau? Pearson? What's the point of getting all riled up about an election that has no good outcome? And that is quite possibly out of our hands?

###

The Greens Must Be In the Debate

Elizabeth May should be in the leaders' debate based on:

* The fact that the Greens have an MP in parliament
* The precedent set in 1993 when the Bloc and Reform were allowed into debates
* The fact that the Greens are fielding candidates in almost every riding
* The results of recent by-elections (in which the Greens bested major parties in some ridings)
* The support for the Green Party in the last election
* The solid standing of the Greens in the polls

Long time readers of this blog will know that I don't think much of the Green Party. Their over-emphasis on a platform of killing progressive taxation is wrong for several reasons: it is an absolutely awful idea; it is a waste of time because it is not going to happen; and it distracts from more productive and interesting conversation about the environment. However, I think the Conservatives' platform sucks even more and yet I support their right to fair participation in the democratic process.

As Chantal Hebert points out, the only reason the Greens can be excluded is that they don't have a narrow geographic base that can rise up in effective protest, as the Bloc and Reform had. The fact that the Greens are represented across the country is, paradoxically, what makes them weaker. They will be excluded - and the fairness of the election will be compromised - unless people of all parties insist that they be there.

I'm specifically not saying which parties chose to exclude the Greens because this shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's about fair elections.

But the cherry on top would be that Elizabeth May, whatever her policies, is a superstar speaker who would add eloquence and insight to the proceeding. She's also fully bilingual.

###

If There's Ever A Time To Attack Harper, It's Now

I'm somewhat bemused by the controversy over whether the Liberals should go negative against Harper. The entire discussion is bogus.

One, Stephane Dion and the Liberals have been hit with a negative ad campaign over the last year that is almost unprecedented. Using tax-payer money, the Conservatives have mailed wave after wave of ads attacking Dion's character and ability to lead. I have received as many as four in one day. The Tory negative ad campaign is perhaps the biggest reason that they’re ahead today. We have to fight back.

Two, the discussion assumes that anything negative is "negative campaigning". To my mind, PR is only "negative" if it attacks a person in an unfair way. The most clear-cut example that comes to mind is Kim Campbell’s ad making fun of Jean Chretien’s face (and man, did that rebound on her). A party's record is fair game. The Conservatives have a record, and we need to expose its flaws.

Three, there is a place for positive advertising (showing our strengths and talking about our policies) but there are some areas where the only effective response is to criticize the other party’s position. For example, criminal justice. Canada had an exemplary record in criminal justice, including jail diversion programs. We could have done a lot better, but we had great success in terms of low and falling crime rates. Harper is changing all that with policies aimed at sending more people, and especially more youth, to jail. This area requires negative advertising: Harper's record must be exposed.

To quote a recent comment, “A majority would enable [the Conservatives] to move forward with the fear-mongering tactics they have been using around crime in Canada. The self-fulfilling prophesy that happens with massive investment in the correctional industry is at the expense of more constructive and much needed economic and social policy. The experience of hopelessness and despair results in people making ends meet through criminal means. Harper and his crew are working toward a mandate to ignore the desperate life situations of those in Canada who are increasingly impoverished. The Harper agenda for this country feels less and less like Canada.”

Finally, there is a puzzling double standard here. During the last election Paul Martin was crippled by media criticism of him going negative against Harper – well before the campaign started or a single critical word was uttered. The reason this happened is that so many people find Harper’s extremist views frightening for our country. Harper is scary, and so the Liberals were expected to talk about his scariness, and so they were portrayed as scaremongerers. Go figure.

Right now, by my count, the Conservatives are embroiled in five scandals:

* Massive campaign spending fraud in the last election, resulting in a reprimand from Elections Canada, resulting in PMO interference in the civil service, resulting in possible future criminal charges.
* Twelve dead Canadians and many more sick due to tainted meat while Harper proposes to reduce food inspection even more.
* A Foreign Affairs minister with a history of reckless disregard for confidential papers and a girlfriend with mafia ties.
* An attempt to buy the vote of a dying Liberal MP.
* Their last prime minister admitting to taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from an arms dealer, with tens of millions of dollars in bribes still unaccounted for.

###

Ten Reasons Harper Is Calling the Election Now

1. By-elections: Four by-elections are supposed to be held in September but will be cancelled if Harper calls the election on Sunday, as predicted. Tories were predicted to do badly in the by-elections (as bad as third place in Guelph), which would have weakened them considerably.

2. Economy: The economy continues to weaken and is possibly heading into recession.

3. Diminishing Support in Quebec: Harper did a lot to bring Quebec on side, but his recent cuts in arts funding may have started a slide, according to Chantal Hebert.

4. Scandal: Elections Canada announced that Conservatives exceeded the $18.3 million election advertising limit in the 2006 election and wrongly claimed taxpayer rebates. It is charged that they laundered money between local and federal accounts. This will go to the courts, but not until after the election.

5. A second scandal: Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier flagrantly broke the rules about confidentiality, apparently frequently, but finally by leaving important NATO documents in the care of a woman who has ties to organized crime. There is going to be some kind of inquiry but again, not until after the election.

6. A third scandal: There are disturbing allegations that Conservatives tried to buy dying Chuck Cadman's vote in parliament. New revelations came out just this week pointing at Harper's direct involvement.

7. A fourth scandal: Sometime soon, presumably, we will finally get our inquiry into how much money Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney got from international arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber, and under what circumstances. We may even learn a little about how Harper managed to cover up, or at least delay, the investigation.

8. Failed military policy: The war in Afghanistan is going really badly. It was one thing to go in initially to try to stabilize the country. Now Canadian soldiers and dying and Afghan civilians are dying and it's not clear that we're making any progress at all. There are also disturbing questions about the real motivation of the American involvement.

9. November US election: An Obama win in the United States will strengthen the momentum of progressives here.

10. PR strategy: After papering the nation for six or eight months with negative, scaremongering anti-Dion ads, the Conservatives apparently feel the groundwork is laid for them to "go positive" with touch-feely "at home in my mansion" ads featuring that ballpeen hammer of a charmer, Stephen Harper. (I caught the first one on TV last night.)

And a final reason... Every new opposition leader has a learning curve (someone did an historical analysis and estimated three years before they're fully effective) but Stephane Dion is coming into his own; with Bob Rae now in parliament, the Liberals are becoming more of a threat to Harper.

If you have more, please let me know!

###

Why the Liberals Can Win This Thing

Despite widespread polls showing the Liberals and Conservatives tied, the Globe recently published a poll suggesting that the Conservatives might be headed for a majority.

But what the polls don't show is fire in the belly and election readiness. From a number of factors, including two communications I got yesterday, I think the Liberals are going to rise to the occasion and win this thing. My riding association, which didn't seem very interested in including new faces in the last election, sent a great email asking for volunteers... a real call to arms. Plus, I received a charming and effective letter from Bob Rae, asking me to write, call or email him with my views so he can "give them voice in Ottawa and beyond." Small things perhaps, but they show that the party is pulling in the grass roots in a way they haven't done so well in the past.

I have no doubt that Harper is calling the election because he saw numbers similar to what the Globe published and thought this was his best shot at a majority. Cynically tossing aside his commitment to fixed election dates, he's telling bald-faced lies about gridlock in parliament and going to the polls more than a year early. Once again he's using tax-payer money to finance his personal ambitions.

It's going to rebound on him. A few days ago I was thinking of going back to the NDP (after some inspiration from James Laxer), but now I'm galvanized to support Stephane Dion. I can't wait to see Dion debate Harper: integrity and intelligence are going to look very good in comparison to nasty ideology.

Harper now has a solid record, and it's a record of dismantling principles we hold dear. Canada has a low (and declining) crime rate and internationally-renowned jail diversion programs: Harper has done what he can to fill our prisons, especially with his favorite target - youth. We have a strong civil society and vibrant artistic community: Harper has done what he can to strip funding. He has horrified us with his use of power to attack private citizens, such as his completely unfair recent denunciation of journalist Gwynne Dyer. He is underhandedly trying to chip away at a woman's right to control her own body. And there are some really shady election shenanigans that he has to answer for.

There are a lot of scary things Harper wants to do but has not yet been able to, but the scariest is the dismantling of our system of public health care. Make no mistake: if he gets his majority, or maybe even if he gets another minority, health care as we know it is toast. We already have private health care: any Canadian can go south and buy whatever they want. The only reason for instituting two-tier health care in Canada is to undermine the current system and force its demise.

This isn't like the last election, when the media undermined a legitimate line of attack against Harper by saying the Liberals were scaremongerers. This time around Harper has a record to stand by, and it's not pretty. Harper's vision of Canada has been exposed and it is a US Republican Mini-Me: militaristic, unregulated, polluted; with tax cuts for the rich and benefits cuts for the poor; with full jails; and with government hand-outs geared towards corporations, not communities.

This isn't like the last election, when the Liberals were crippled by allegations of corruption (some valid, some not) that sapped our fighting spirit.

This time we have a visionary leader who radiates integrity and who is in tune with the concerns of Canadians. And we have an energized base that is gungho to get Harper the heck out of Ottawa.

###

Fighting an Election on the Crime Bill

I would love to fight a federal election on the Harper crime bill.

At the start of our last federal election campaign, mainstream media undercut one of Paul Martin's best campaign strategies by predicting that he would run a negative campaign that demonized Harper and scared Canadians into thinking Harper would impose values repugnant to most Canadians. This blanket media interference effectively kicked the stuffing out of legitimate Liberal arguments that Harper is at odds with the majority of Canadians on abortion, crime, capital punishment, the social safety net, universal health care, an evangelical religious agenda, and on and on.

When Harper came to power the media told us that Harper couldn't do any of those things, even if he wanted to, because he had a minority government. Then they told us that coming to power had shifted Harper towards the center and blunted some of his more extremist views.

But during the last two years Harper has moved Canada towards a less caring, more punitive US model. This "Tacking Violent Crime" bill is an outrageous reversal of practices that have helped Canada maintain a startlingly lower crime (and incarceration) rate than the US. As I've written before:

The homicide rate per 100,000 people in the US is 5.59. In Canada, it is 1.85... and declining. It makes no sense to follow the model of a country that locks up inordinate amounts of its citizens - especially minorities - and only manages to keep crime rampant.

Canada has had huge success with a kinder, gentler approach to crime. Jail diversion programs reduce recidivism, but that should not be the only metric used to judge their effectiveness. This is a human rights issue. Going to prison wrecks a person's life: it is traumatizing; it makes it difficult for a person to ever work at a good job or fit in to regular society; it is a training ground for future criminal behavior. People should only be subjected to prison when there is risk to society or a strong need for deterrence.

Since Day One, the Harper government has been waging a propoganda campaign to convince Canadians to Americanize our justice system. Their biggest target has been youthful offenders, who Harper wants to lock up more often and for longer periods - just the ticket to ruin their lives, ruin their family's lives, and encourage them to enter a life of crime.

Liberal party leadership have to decide which issue to focus on in the next election, and that decision should be made on the basis of a much stronger understanding of the country than I have, but for me, the crime bill is The issue of the day. Afghanistan is much iffier for me. I don't like the idea of Canadians being involved in any war, but a Liberal government got us into this engagement, and I supported Paul Martin's reasons for doing so at the time.

###

Faith-Based Schools

What bothers me most about John Tory's proposal to provide public funding for faith-based schools is that someone so close to being Premier of our province could be so wrong-headed as to think religious orientation should be the basis on which educational facilities get funding.

What of the province's large network of Montessori schools, or bilingual schools? How in the world can he justify discrimination against schools that are not faith-based?

During his short stint as Premier, Ernie Eves enacted policy to provide a $2,000 tax credit for each child attending private school. I didn't agree with the policy and was glad that Dalton McGuinty cancelled the program before it started, but that policy was at least reasonable public policy. Tory's proposal is so scandalously bad that it should be unconstitutional.

Another issue with Tory's proposal is the extra cost of busing tens of thousands of students to the school of their choice. That cost would be enormous, and would be on top of the estimated $500 million that his proposal would drain from public education.

This isn't an off-the-cuff idea of Tory's. It isn't the fault of his policy committee. This is Tory's baby and he has been proposing it for years. He stuck to this policy even in the face of an outraged public during an election campaign, softening only so far as to say that as Premier he'd allow a free vote on it.

Some see Tory's proposal as a way to right the wrong of the Catholic school system. I also oppose the Catholic school system, but shattering the system will not fix it, or make it more equitable - it will just create a lot of new inequities, and a province full of ill-educated kids to boot. It was Conservative Premier Bill Davis who brought in the fully-funded all-grade Catholic school system, and it's not going to be easy (or possible?) to remove. Nearly half the province is Catholic, and there are 650,000 students enrolled in Catholic schools (out of a total of 2 million students). Catholics argue that their schools provide a better education than public schools. At the least, dismantling the dual school system is going to require compromises. If one compromise is to provide a half day for religious training in every school, then I could see opening up the program to other faiths.

But is Tory's proposal really about Catholic schools? Remember that his other unpopular policy proposal during this election was to introduce two-tier health care by allowing private medicine in the province. Allowing a multitude of faith-based school boards is a form of privatization of the school system, just as he wants to privatize the health system. Both proposals would enormously weaken the public institutions' funding and their ability to provide essential services. It seems that privatization at all costs is Tory's goal. What he wants to do is dismantle our government.

It is mind-boggling that Tory never thought through the implications of his proposal to fund faith-based schools - that he doesn't have the intellect to see the implications, and doesn't have the right people around him to set him straight, and doesn't listen to people with differing viewpoints. We are very, very lucky that McGuinty is forecast to win a majority in tomorrow's election. The Conservative Party of Ontario should seriously consider finding a new leader who has more common sense and at least a basic understanding of good public policy.

###

MMP: Five Reasons I Vote No

1. I don't want larger ridings.

2. I don't want 39 of our MPPs to be unrepresentative of any riding, without constinuency office, constituency duties, constituency president, constituency board, or... constituency.

3. I don't think the 3% limit for list votes is high enough. It will lead to too many single-issue parties getting seats.

4. I don't believe that MMP will lead to more women and minorities in parliament. The parties have ways to elect more women or minorities now, and aren't using them.

5. I don't believe the current system is working badly.

###

Ahoy Kitchener-Waterloo: Witmer is Vulnerable!

It has been a long run for Conservative Elizabeth Witmer. She has been Kitchener-Waterloo's MPP for 17 years, but it seems in next week's election she is vulnerable to defeat.

The Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy Seat Calculator still shows Witmer as the predicted winner, but LISPOP also quotes local news reports as saying that "the race could go down to the wire." That's about as encouraging as it gets when you oppose such an entrenched incumbent.

The K-W NDP has an extremely capable candidate in Catherine Fife - the best NDP candidate I've ever seen in our riding. Her web site claims that she is only slightly behind the Liberal candidate, Louise Ervin.

Still, it's probable that K-W Liberal Louise Ervin is the only candidate who could unseat Witmer. Ervin, a longtime member of the School Board and former teacher and social worker, has a solid understanding of local issues, a great resume and a solid track record.

People criticize strategic voting but the fact is that Witmer will only win if the NDP and Liberals split the vote. My mother, impressed by Fife, found a compromise: she's voting for Ervin but sent Fife a campaign contribution. Me, I'm just voting for Ervin.

I would dearly like to have new representation in the next government. Witmer was such a big part of the horrible Mike Harris years... let's get her out and elect someone new.

Some Thoughts on the Democratic Race

Hillary is suffering from front-runner syndrome: she's taking all the heat. She's standing up to it with strength and aplomb, so maybe that will catapult her into a win... or maybe it's a poor strategy based on her husband's success in taking a lot of hits early and becoming seemingly "teflon." It might backfire and leave her too scarred to continue. I heard a pundit recently refer to her as "a flawed candidate" as if she is heavily tarnished, and this seems to be a growing conventional wisdom.

(I keep saying this but I'll say it again: After we were hoodwinked on Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, it seems impossible that we could let ourselves be hoodwinked about another good Democratic candidate -- and yet we're letting it happen again with the lies and innuendo about Hillary. Is politics so partisan these days that we can never see things clearly - even in a primary? I'm not saying that there are no reasons to prefer another candidate over Hillary, but those reasons are invalid if they include sentiments that she's too "cold"; she's ugly; she's tainted by having a husband who had affairs; or she's a hypocrite because she changes her clothes or hair-do. There are also untrue claims that she supports the war in Iraq, is in the pockets of the lobbyists, and does not support universal health care. (If you read the comments on political columns on the Huffington Post or Washington Post web site, that about sums up opposition to Hillary.) If you're a Democrat and you oppose Hillary, then do some honest thinking and let us know what valid reasons you have for opposing her.)

And yet I can't ignore Obama's low negative ratings. I don't think you can just pass it off to being a newcomer with a brief public record. When there's an issue I'm puzzled by, I want to hear what Obama has to say. There's one thing that bothers me about Obama: sometimes when he's answering a question he has a little hint of a grin like he's about to stop mid-sentence and say, "Aw, I'm just kidding." Maybe they're all thinking that and the others just hide it better.

Edwards, in third place, is free to ignore the two frontrunners and take on the Right. He has taken on Anne Coulter, Fox News, the current administration, and probably a lot more that I haven't followed. He has got himself in the news by doing this and generated a lot of controversy (and criticism). I'm listening to the George Stephanopoulis Democratic primary debate as I write this, and Edwards has just entered a debate about how to end the war in Iraq by saying, "Any Democratic president will end the war in Iraq." He is taking an interestingly unifying role. He is also speaking out quite bravely to stand up for progressive issues like regulations that help citizens. I'm glad he's taking this course because it all needs to be said at this high level, but I'm not sure what his game is. Another run at VP? Staying out of the fray because his only hope is to have Hillary and Obama implode? Trying on something new because he doesn't want to just repeat the campaign of 2004? Or is it not pure strategy... perhaps in this, his second run at presidential candidate, with a wife whose cancer has returned, he is doing a Bullworth and using his candidate status to say what he thinks needs to be said. I'm not convinced that Edwards is the best candidate for president but I'm impressed as hell by him.

As to the other five candidates, all of whom are at 2% or less (at least in this Iowa debate), I'm puzzled. They are so vigilantly negative: a bunch of old men who want to tear down the system for their own political benefit. I wish they would go away.

And finally, the flies. I know Iowa is an agricultural state, but it's freaky watching the candidates try to ignore the flies that are crawling all over their heads.

###

Why the Cleavage Issue Matters

The really interesting thing about the Hillary Cleavage Debate is the comments on the Washington Post Campaign Trail Blog's web page about it. (The page was originally called "Clinton cashing in on cleavage" but was later changed to "Let the cleavage conversation begin".)

The history is: The Washington Post published an article about an outfit Hillary wore on the Senate floor that had a slightly low-cut blouse. The article claimed that Hillary was showing cleavage and then analysed all the times she has worn sexy clothing. (I couldn't detect any cleavage in the accompanying photo.) The Clinton campaign sent out a fund-raising letter that started, "Would you believe that the Washington Post wrote a 746-word article on Hillary's cleavage? ...focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting."

Comments on the blog about the issue include:

* The Clinton campaign is over-reacting and is being stupid and petty.
* The Clinton campaign is manipulating people by raising this issue.
* The article was flattering, so why complain?
* Hillary is a hypocrite because she has started to wear more feminine clothes.
* Since Hillary is old and has small breasts, it is gross to think about her body (the term "shrivelled tits" was used, along with several other epithets). This may be the most common theme of all the comments.

I can answer all those who profess not to understand why Hillary made an issue of the article. For the 8 years she was First Lady, Hillary's appearance was scrutinized until it nearly paralysed her. I recall feature articles in top news magazines that showed all of her hairstyles over the years, implying that there was something wrong with her moral fiber because she was inconsistent in her use of a hairband. (I believe she talks about it in her memoir Living History but I wasn't able to find the reference in my copy.)

In the west at least, most women change their clothing and hair styles on a regular basis, but in Hillary's case any change is raised as an indication that she (a) has to fake it to appear feminine; and (b) is a hypocrite and a liar.

Hillary has to take control of this issue or it could ruin her attempt to become president. It shouldn't be such a damaging issue for her, but it is because of a combination of sexism, smear tactics, and our fixation on titillation. She controls the issue by getting people to talk about it and to realize just how sexist and inappropriate it is, and how hurtful it is - not just to her, but to all of us.

Update May 2008: Since I wrote this, the Washington Post has removed the offensive comments from the page I reference.

###

Why I Endorse Hillary as Democratic Candidate for President

The thing that really strikes me about Hillary Clinton is that she understands context. When asked (during the CNN/YouTube debate) whether she would call herself a Liberal, she gave a brief non-preachy precis of the changing definition of Liberal over the last 100 years, as well as the original US meaning of the word "progressive". When asked whether she would negotiate with dictators in her first year in office she gave a brief description of an appropriate diplomatic approach, starting with envoys and being careful of how things are interpreted or spun in different places.

She has a lightness to her approach that the other Democratic candidates don't have. She seems to be bouncing lightly on the balls of her feet, smiling - she's confident and she's ready for any question. She's ready to win.

That she will win is very much in doubt. While she's still ahead by some measures (and second to Obama by others), the chance of a woman beoming US president is still low. Women may be better educated than men these days, but we do not by any stretch of the imagination have equality. Hillary faces huge prejudices aimed at powerful women and she faces an anti-Clinton Republican machine.

I like the other candidates. I really like Barack Obama and John Edwards. I endorse Hillary because she is by far the most qualified, and I think she will do the best job. In fact, I think she will be a far better president than her husband (and he was pretty damn good). History will change if Hillary is president, and the world will become a better place.

Down the road, with more experience (and perhaps a stint as VP), either Obama or Edwards would make a great president, but in 2008 Hillary's The Man.

###