Fisking the Tory talking points

I was quite interested to see the Tory talking points that were mailed out to their loyal supporters in order to have them not only phone up talk radio, but also use identical arguments. I'm very grateful to the Montréal Gazette [http://tinyurl.com/5qcgby] for getting a copy of this document and running it for the rest of Canadians who don't happen to be members of Steven Harper's Foot Soldiers TM.

Unfortunately, Harper doesn't do his foot soldiers and any favors when it comes to making them look smart. The "arguments" that he furnishes them with are, by and large, either pointless, pure propaganda or dependent on a logical fallacy. Let's have a look.

1. "Is anyone else outraged by what the opposition parties are doing in Ottawa?"

Pure propaganda, no logical content.

This line item exists for the purpose of linking "outrage" to the words "Opposition Parties", in order to imply that the Opposition has been doing something outrageous.

2. "We are not even two months removed from the last election, and a group of backroom politicians are going to pick with the prime minister is. Canadians didn't vote for this person. We don't even know who this person will be."

Propaganda, presenting the idea that backroom manipulations are circumventing the democratic process. Considering that Harper's Conservatives are under extraordinarily rigid control, considering that Harper put an unelected official into the Senate quite happily when he was first elected, and considering that last month's Tory convention in Winnipeg was hermetically sealed even to many party faithful, he has no right to accuse the opposition of using these tactics -- and in actual fact the opposition is using perfectly legitimate parliamentary procedure.

3. "Not a single voter voted for a liberal -- NDP coalition. Certainly not a single voter voted for the Liberals to form a coalition with the separatists in the block."

Pure nonsense. A coalition wasn't part of the voting process, so no one could have voted for it. However, quite a number of people declared themselves to be ABC voters, which at least implies a willingness to support a coalition.

A second element of this paragraph talks about the Bloc Québecois as "separatists". The talking point covertly dismisses the Bloc, and thus Quebecers, as being un-Canadian. This can hardly be soothing to the 1.3 million people who voted for the Bloc. Does Harper want to be reminding the Bloc that they're seperatists?

4. "(Add to the above)... what's worse the Liberals even promised that there wouldn't be a coalition with the NDP --. this is all about power, all about money and they don't even want to face the voters.”

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Harper's Conservatives, the youngest political party in Canada, exists at all because of a broken promise. Harper himself has shown no hesitation in breaking promises without a backward glance. (For instance, the taxation of income trusts.)

As far as the phrase “…this is all about power, all about money and they don't even want to face the voters.” This is an example of the Republican tactic of accusing your opponent of precisely the thing that you yourself are doing.

The federal funding of political parties was put in place to somewhat separate monied interests from the political process, and as a trade-off for the corporate dollars lost through restrictions of those donations. I have not heard the Conservatives mention lifting those restrictions along with the lifting of the federal money. Considering how expensive a political campaign is, especially the travel and the advertising, the amounts being paid to parties are woefully inadequate, and are dwarfed by the cost of the election itself -- which the taxpayer also shoulders. This last election cost each and every Canadian about $10 apiece. To add $1.95 per voter (not per citizen) to that tab in order to support the party that a voter actually voted for hardly seems exorbitant.

5. "This is what bothers me the most. The Conservatives won the election. The Opposition keeps saying that the Conservatives have to respect the will of the voters, that this is a minority, and so on."

This argument lays out a false dichotomy. Unlike the United States, there are not two parties in Canada, the Conservatives versus the Opposition. There are, in fact, lots, of which five are big enough to to run with the big dogs. By a large margin, most Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives.

And by the way -- in a parliamentary system, unlike the American system, the Conservatives really do have to respect the will of the voters, and also the will of Parliament. They have a minority government, so they get to stand up front for the overripe fruit and rotten eggs, but don't get to do anything they please. Harper gets to have dinner with the Queen but this does not mean he is the Leader of the Pack.

6. "... how about Liberals, NDP and Bloc respecting the will of the voters when they said "YOU LOSE"."

Unlike the American system, the Canadian system elects MPs, and when those MPs are counted up, the result indicates who gets the overripe fruit. Each constituency elects one MP, and that MP legitimately wins on his or her own merits. In Canada, at least at the time of writing, the Conservatives have only 37% of MPs, while "the Opposition" has the rest. In light of this, it's difficult to see how Harper can say that the voters said "you lose" to everybody except him.

7. "And what's this going to do to the economy. I'm sorry, I don't care how desperate the Liberals are -- giving Socialists (Jack Layton) and separatists (Gilles Duceppe) a veto over every decision in government -- that is a recipe for total economic disaster."

Several layers to this one, first labeling the Liberals as desperate. This actually might be true -- the first truth we have run across in this dissection. However, just because someone is desperate does not mean that their policies are incorrect. It's a separate issue.

Secondly, the unnamed writer of these talking points doesn't seem to understand Canadians very well. In the United States, "socialist" is a dirty word. In Canada, it's a way of life. And as far as Duceppe and the Bloc are concerned, things are comparatively peaceful in Quebec at the moment, and unlikely to get worse unless Mr. Harper keeps poking at them with cultural pointed sticks.

And finally, the unnamed writer invokes total economic disaster. True, Canada is unlikely to escape the backwash of a foundering USA. However, we are in far better shape than almost any other developed nation, although over the past few years the surplus that Paul Martin left behind has been somewhat eroded. Times may be tough over the next two or three years -- they are unlikely to be catastrophic.

However -- if Harper (or his talking-point manufacturer) really believes that Canada is on the brink of " total economic disaster" then what the hell is he doing playing petty politics?

8. "Here is what is bothering me about all of the back room opposition coalition talk..."

Again with the word "back room". Does the unnamed writer of these talking points really expect anyone to believe that politics is done without consultation behind-the-scenes? Particularly Harper’s Conservatives, who seem to do everything far away from the public eye -- even their campaigning?


9. "Sure it bothers me that parties Canadians rejected are trying to seize power through the back door"

As noted above, the Canadians did not reject these parties, these are all parties that ran lots of candidates and earned large numbers of Canadian votes. And secondly they are employing perfectly legitimate procedures in considering a coalition.

10. "But how much more phony could these guys be?"

I don't know, as phony as a fuzzy blue sweater on a shark?

11. "I mean, I follow the news, virtually every single day you have Harper or Flaherty out there telegraphing exactly what they plan to do with the economy. And not once do you hear the Liberals, NDP or separatists talking about toppling the government in response."

Parts of this are partly true. Certainly until now it has only been the more fiery members of the un-Conservative parties who have speculated about a coalition, although plenty of bloggers have. Until now, Harper has skillfully walked a tightrope between the greater or lesser smelliness of his legislation and the nuisance of voting no-confidence and heading for an election. But now, I think that the non-Harper parties have finally snapped and gotten completely fed up with having Harper yank their chains on a constant basis, while losing weeks out of the limited working time of the 40th Canadian Parliament.

The other part of this talking point concerns the constant telegraphing of Conservative plans for the economy. Perhaps I have missed it, or perhaps it is being telegraphed in Morse code.

12. "No --- do you know what set this off. When Flaherty said he was going to take a taxpayer-funded subsidies away from the Opposition. Now there is a reason to try and overturn an election -- because the Conservatives have the audacity to say "hey, it's a recession, maybe you should take your nose out of the trough."

First, no one has mentioned Harper wants this defunding to take place retroactively. I wonder how many bills remain to be paid by parties who had planned their campaigns with this money in mind? Changing the rules after the cards are on the table is hardly a fair procedure, especially considering that vote-based funding was the law of the land (and still is) when Harper ignored the spirit of his own election law and pushed Canada into a entirely uncalled for $300 million election.

Secondly, $30 million really is small change, compared to the huge numbers needing to be juggled. All three of the cuts in the mini-budget dealt with penny-ante concerns which would annoy a very large number of people while saving a very small amount of money.

And Harper has not said how that money is going to be replaced -- in the absence of big donations from labor or from corporations. Perhaps what all the parties should do is raise money until an election is called, put it into a pool, and then split that money five ways among them.. After all, wouldn't it be fair if all parties started from the gate with no differences except the quality of their candidates and their policies?

13. "And I wish the media would be more clear on this point -- the Opposition aren't being singled out by this fact the Conservatives stand to lose the most money of all. The only difference is that Canadians are voluntarily giving money the Conservatives so they don't need taxpayer handouts. The only reason the Opposition would be hurt more is because nobody wants to donate to them. They should be putting their efforts towards fixing that problem"

We should all know the word "disingenuous". This unknown writer is stating that the Conservatives will lose the most money of all in scrapping this funding. While true, they hardly need it this time around, since they have barrels of money.

Again we see the squishing together of all the non-Conservative parties into one big "Opposition" party, and then the suggestion that the Opposition Party doesn’t have money because they need better fundraising.

Of course, that taxpayer funding comes directly from the voters, and in direct proportion to the number of votes they cast for that party’s candidates. Thirty million Canadians, $30 million dollars. That’s hardly a burden on the nation.

14. And finally -- "I don't want another election. But what I want to even less is a surprise back room prime minister whom I never even had the opportunity to vote for or against. What an insult to democracy."

What I want to know is, where are these "back room's"? Again we have the implication of something shady, like smalltime gangsters meeting in the back room of a pool hall. I am sure that at the moment the opposition parties are meeting everywhere except pool halls -- most likely convention rooms in hotels, just like all other legitimate associations.

The unnamed writer again shows he is unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure. Hammering together a coalition is one of many permissible ways to run Canada. Doing it privately is permissable, probably wise, and certainly not out of line with Harper's modus operandi.

As for insulting democracy, I have a real problem with the Conservatives running campaign attack ads for months, and then forcing an actual election, therefore escaping a big chunk the election spending caps that are imposed on all the other parties. What an insult to democracy. Right?

On a lighter note

Election Wishes....

Dion, Harper and Layton are flying on the Executive Airbus to a gathering in British Columbia when Dion turns to Harper and says, chuckling, 'You know, I could throw a $1000 bill out the window right now and make someone very happy .'

Harper shrugs and replies, 'Well, I could throw ten $100 bills out the window and make ten people happy.'

Not to be outdone, Layton says, 'Well I could throw a hundred $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people happy.'

The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, 'Such arrogant jerks back there. Heck, I could throw all three of them out the window and make 32 million people happy!!!'

Thanks, Roger!

Isn't THIS interesting

Did you know about this? I didn't know about it. Apparently it's a deep dark secret.... just like the the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Now, I happen to think a much more robust trade deal with the European Union is a good idea. This country needs to get out from under the economic dependency of being strapped to the US. But given the conditions that seem to come with it, it's not the right way to do it. And since it's being driven by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, you just know the average Canadian is going to get thoroughly and properly screwed. That and one other important and salient point:

Harper is preparing entering into major trade negotiations without consulting Canadians. He's checked it out with big business but he's afraid to put it on the table for the Canadian electorate. And he has the perfect opportunity to do so in an election campaign.

So, why isn't he doing it? Easy. He has polls which tell him it is politically unpalatable. In other words, the political impact is negative and the communications strategy has not yet been formulated. The "jelly bean" lines have yet to be properly refined.

You see, this will set off a firestorm of protest:

The proposed pact would far exceed the scope of older agreements such as NAFTA by encompassing not only unrestricted trade in goods, services and investment and the removal of tariffs, but also the free movement of skilled people and an open market in government services and procurement – which would require that Canadian governments allow European companies to bid as equals on government contracts for both goods and services and end the favouring of local or national providers of public-sector services.

Yes, you read that correctly. Governments - plural. Even provincial and municipal governments.

If Harper goes ahead with this, having had it in his pocket during an election and doesn't put it to the electorate, even if he wins a majority, he will have no mandate to proceed. Witholding this kind of information is patently dishonest. And Harper needs to learn that those CEOs have the same number of votes as every other Canadian over the age of 18 - one each.

Go read Alison.

Let them all debate

Ripping off the entire post from Fern Hill at Birth Pangs :

"Now that the election is on, let us return to that dandy idea that a poster over at Freak Dominion had — if having one sitting member allows a party leader into the debate, the fundy nutbars Christian Heritage Party should work to get Ken Epp, or some other fetus fetishizing MP, to cross the floor. Heck, it’s not like Epp has anything to lose. He’s not running again, and after he was bitch-slapped by his party over C-484, he’s probably more open to an idea like this than previously.

We are dead serious here. A leaders debate with all of them, including the nutbars.

Well, Deceivin’ Stephen is already whining about the possibility of including Elizabeth (’Giggles’) May.

"Elizabeth May is not an opponent of Stéphane Dion,” Harper said. “She is his candidate in Central Nova, and I think it would be fundamentally unfair to have two candidates who are essentially running on the same platform in the debate," Harper said at a campaign event in Richmond, B.C.

Imagine it. Having the CHP guy there would guaran-goddam-tee that abortion would come up.
He’d blather some truly scary shit from the party platform like:

"We favor the elimination of all public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortion. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, and therefore is a crime against God, the pre-born child, the mother and father, and society. It should be treated as such by the Government and must not be permitted or supported. The pre-born child has the right to life, liberty and security of the person from the moment of conception. These rights of the pre-born must be protected in Canada’s laws through appropriate amendments to our Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Once this protection is in force, any person who performs or assists in an abortion, or arranges for a woman to have an abortion, should be charged with a criminal offense. Any medical practitioner convicted of performing an abortion, or assisting in an abortion, or arranging for a woman to have an abortion should have his or her license suspended."

Then ‘Giggles’ would give us her nuanced view. Giles and Jack would sneer. Stéphane would look smug.

And Deceivin’ Stephen would squirm and twitch and twist in the wind.

Great fun for all.

And any nonsense about Quebec going Reforma-Tory would die right there."


Too late now - Fern's post went up before the writ was dropped - but it's a good argument for letting all the parties into the debate.
There is also the small matter of supporting the democratic process .

There will be blood

Shorter Steve Harper: I will be running the dirtiest, filthiest form of gutter campaign I can legally get away with. I justify this to you by predicting that the opposition would start it... if I didn't start it first.

Vote Con or the Taliban wins

Responding to an amazingly leading question as to "whether he thought the Taliban would target Canada's military in an attempt to influence the election outcome", Peter MacKay takes the bait :

"I sure hope not," he said. "All I can tell you is the challenge is there, it's real. We've seen the tactics of the Taliban. ... Their tactics know no bounds, know no rules of engagement."

He said the government is aware the Taliban is not just “living in caves and attacking soldiers” and is informed about what is happening in Canada and other parts of the world through the Internet, which also helps them wage their own propaganda war.
"We're mindful of that, we're not deterred by the intimidation and we're going to continue our important work there to the benefit of the Afghan people," he said."

Apparently it's vote Con or the Taliban wins.

Pete then went on to say he doesn't give a rat's ass what Canadians think when asked about "a recent poll that suggested 61 per cent of Canadians believe the cost in lives and money is too high."

Nor does he much care for the opinions of the Afghans apparently.

AP : "A strong sense of frustration echoed through dozens of interviews by The Associated Press with Afghan villagers, police, government officials, tribal elders and Taliban who left and rejoined the religious movement. The interviews ranged from the capital, Kabul, to the rural regions near the border with Pakistan.
The overwhelming result: Ordinary Afghans are deeply bitter about American and NATO forces because of errant bombs, heavy-handed searches and seizures and a sense that the foreigners do not understand their culture. They are equally fed up with what they see as seven years of corruption and incompetence in a U.S.-backed government that has largely failed to deliver on development.
Even with more foreign troops, Afghanistan is now less secure.
"It certainly is a mess. Security is the worst that it has been for years. Corruption is out of control. It impacts every single Afghan," says Doug Wankel, a burly 62-year-old American who coordinated Washington's anti-drug policy in Afghanistan from 2004 until 2007 and is now back as a security consultant. "What people have to understand is that what ordinary Afghans think really does matter."

Not to our Pete.

Halifax Chronicle Herald : "It does come at a huge sacrifice," Mr. MacKay said. "The human cost is enormous but the benefits that flow to our country, certainly to Afghanistan and to our allies, are huge."

Huge.

AP : "It is now so dangerous outside the capital that Afghans are afraid to travel hundreds of miles of newly-paved roads, and most international aid groups have forbidden their staff to do so altogether. Truck drivers who have no choice often say thieves and thieving police are a bigger worry than the Taliban.

An air strike in Herat province about two weeks ago killed dozens of people. A U.S. investigation concluded that most were Taliban, but the Afghan government and the United Nations say up to 90 civilians died, including children

"There is a contradiction between wanting to minimize Afghan civilian casualties and minimizing U.S. military casualties," says Robert Oakley, a former U.S. ambassador and National Security Council staff member. "For the former, we should go on the ground. For the latter, go in from the air."

AFP : Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, who commands US and international forces in eastern Afghanistan, said Friday he needs more troops to counter growing insurgent violence in Afghanistan.

"The number of insurgent attacks has grown by 20 to 30 percent in the first eight months of this year in the eastern sector along the border with Pakistan, compared to the same period last year, he said. Roadside bombs are up 30 percent over last year, while attacks on such "symbols of governance" as district centers are 40 percent higher this year than last."


Peter MacKay made his remarks at a military trade show.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Fiscally conservative at $3.9-million an hour

"From June 2nd to September 4th, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) tracked 293 pre-election spending announcements totaling $8.8-billion made by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. That is roughly $94-million a day or about $3.9-million every hour."

The CTF, formerly Steve's very good friends, have been pissed with him for some time now and have published this handy chart of spending gems from which to more accurately get your hate on. While $4B was earmarked for Quebec infrastructure just yesterday, my personal fave has to be the admittedly rather smallish grant to create a festival in Shag Harbour, N.S., to commemorate a 1967 UFO sighting. According to their website, someone will be onsite painting aliens on rocks.

Meanwhile, amidst all this electoral largesse, the Attawapiskat kids in northern Ontario are expected to wait another eight years before they can have a school. Maybe they should start looking around for some UFOs.

h/t Challenging the Commonplace
Cross-posted at Creekside

Election Issues 101

or, 101 things to think about if Steve gets his election :

Afghanistan mission/Operation Enduring Freedom, Cadman tapes, Bernier affair, in and out scheme, attacks on wheat board, Naftagate, dirty tricks manual, ignoring Kyoto Accord, gutting and intimidation of public service, cancelling Court Challenges Act, income trusts, Omar Khadr, Toronto 18/Paintball 11, nuclear watchdog Linda Keen fired, listeriosis, C-484, International AIDs conference snub, arts and culture funding cuts, Status of Women gutted, war resistors deported, war branding for Olympics, softwood lumber deal, attacks on Insite, cuts to BSE/mad cow testing, NorthComm pact, deregulating Canada Post, two-tier healthcare push, Abdelrazik, projected four-fold increase in tar sands production, ethanol grants to agribiz, Oily the Splot ads, extraordinary rendition, torture of Canadian-held prisoners in Afghanistan, 16 lakes to be reclassified as toxic dump sites, Lougheed Martin census, obstructing HoC committees, water and housing and schooling conditions on FN reserves, mail-outs from defeated Con candidates, rewriting/deleting research on government websites, Colombia free trade deal, Canada First - not, copycat crime bill, militarization of arctic, Bill C-537, Bill C-10, NACC, Server in the Sky, Canada-Israel homeland security pact, TOPOFF 5, government scientists muzzled/fired, support for Guantanamo, RCMP whitewash, TILMA, Chalk River, no-fly list, biometric passports, CIA access to banking records, Benamar Benatta, North American Forum, red fridays, Bali conference, Commonwealth climate change talks, undermining UN nuclear disarmament, Question Period a shambles, Independent Panel on Canada's Mission in Afghanistan, war on drugs, lowering pesticide standards, Montebello, secret deep integration meeting in Banff, "staying the course" in Haiti, DND funding in universities, 600 Canadian companies gone to foreign ownership, support for Wolfowitz at World Bank, Smart Borders, dissing UN rep Louise Arbor, P-3 security forces in Afghanistan, attacks on Dion for having a French mother, faking up law and order hysteria, nukes in the tarsands, Accountability Act, UN vote against pregnant Palestinian women, "Support the troops" as party backdrop, Adult Learning and Literacy Program - eliminated, Health Canada- $28M reduction, Medical Marijuana Research Program- eliminated, Law Commission of Canada - eliminated, Museum Assistance Program - funding cut, One Tonne Challenge - 40% budget cut, Stats Can- budget reduced, Status of Women policy research and lobbying - banned, CMHC - funding reduction, Canadian Heritage Centre - eliminated, Canadian Volunteerism Initiative - eliminated, Canadian Labour Business Centre - eliminated, Canadian Policy Research Network - eliminated, Community Access Program - eliminated, privatization of airline safety, sale of federal buildings, isotope "crisis", GHG "intensity targets", Clean Air Act, reversals on aid to Africa, blocking access to public documents, bullying of Elections Canada, lawsuit against Libs as intimidation, revolving door between Con polis and industry front groups, prominence of Mike Harris MPs in Harper cabinet, the muzzling of Con MPs and candidates, and of course, enthusiastic and unstinting support for deeper integration with the US.

Ok, I've gone way over 101 here. Did I miss many?

An idea

I have the immense good fortune to have a great long-time friend, who sent me this e-mail yesterday, after he sent it to Jack:

Dear Mr. Layton;

Please, please, please meet with M. Douceppe, M. Dion and even Ms. May. Hammer out a coalition government (if the Israelis and the Italians can do it, Canada can) and go to the Governor General after Mr. Harper pulls the plug on his government and say you three can form a government. I bet if you all worked on it you could hold a government together until the "Fixed Election Date". You could do a lot of good for Canada, and besides it would make Stephen Harper's head explode.

Yours in conspiracy
Bruce MacLean

Thanks, Bruce. Simple, and worth a try — e-mail your non-Con MP — TODAY!!

Harper can smell an election

And, jeebus, I can taste it.

Note the sudden flurry of Conservative cabinet ministers descending on, well, election hot spots to... shovel goodies off the back of the truck.

I wish I could say that this is a Conservative modus operandi, but it isn't. It's the M.O. of all politicians about to go into an election.

First we have the man who would have made your iPod useless and his sidekick, "Torture is what people of colour do" making an announcement in Quebec.

Electoral purpose: Yes, your native sons are being killed in a far off, distant land, but look at the money we're going to throw your way. Isn't it all better now? Vote for me. We have created new jobs... with your money.

Next, we have this little announcement. Prentice and MacKay this time... in MacKay's riding.

Atlantic Canadian aerospace companies will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in defence contracts as the result of a move to replace the military's Hercules transport aircraft, two federal cabinet ministers are expected to announce Tuesday.

Electoral purpose: Yes, we have insulted you for being what you are, but look at all the money we're going to throw your way. Isn't it all better now? Vote for me. We have created jobs... with your money.

Then, we have watersport champion and drug-deal awareness aficionado Stockwell Day horning in on the Bellingham shopping crowds' time. That's right. No passports for you lotus-eaters. Just get a new driver's licence. You can zip through the Peace Arch crossing as though there was never an office of Homeland Security on the other side. Despite the fact that driver's licensing is a provincial matter, good old Stockwell, the man who knows the value of a wet-suit, made it look like a federal matter.

British Columbians will soon be able to get a high-tech driver's licence that could be used as an alternative to a passport to cross into the United States by land and sea.

The licences, part of a pilot project involving the province, Washington state and the federal government, will initially involve 500 volunteers who agree to share personal information with Canadian and U.S. authorities.

"The new enhanced driver's licence will confirm both the holder's identity and Canadian citizenship, and can be used at land and water border crossings in place of a passport," Premier Gordon Campbell, with federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day looking on, said Monday.

Privacy? No, no. no. Not if you want to shop at Bellis Fair. Just give it up and things will be just ducky. Super-cop Stock will make it easy for you. Well... maybe.

"B.C. came forward early on with the suggestion of enhanced driver's licences," he said. "Because of their vision ... we're now able to announce that British Columbia will be the first to engage in this pilot project."

Yes... that would be B.C. That place which the federal finance minister chose to leave off the map of Canada during the last federal budget speech. Not a problem. This promotion of cross-border shopping is a good thing. Well... maybe.

Day emphasized, however, that while the enhanced licences are an alternative, Canadians are still urged to get a passport.

You know... because it's US law if you want to go to the US.

Get ready for more of this. When a government is desperate, they resort to desperate measures: Blowing the living daylights out of your tax dollars.

Voting is so... old world

The Reaction has discovered a truly stunning turn around in the 2008 US elections. It would seem that some of the most importanople in the upcoming election (That's relative. It is one year away.) have decided to drop out.

About 300 million of them.

As Michael points out, this is truly stunning.

It amazes me. These are the descendants of the people that decided, for the sake of their liberty and freedom, with a rag-tag militia, to take on the super-power of the day.

And they won.

Yet, they allow some tin pot faux cowboy tear up everything they ever worked for and feed them fear for breakfast.

And they eat it.

I would ask, what ever happened to Don't Tread On Me?

I know. General Motors, McDonalds, Exxon and Blackwater happened.

I guess it was generational.

Are Americans ready for a national ban on ferrets?

The thing I like about reading James Wolcott is that I always seem to learn something completely new about the world. That coupled with the fact that he effortlessly irritates the shit out of untold numbers of right-wingers makes his writing all that more inviting. His latest is no exception.

Admittedly I know next to nothing about New York City politics. I never have. When Rudy Guiliani was mayor of New York he had little effect on anything that affected me. My myopic view of the world did not include New York unless I had a cargo consigned to that city and often that meant going to, well, New Jersey.

It wasn't until September 11th, 2001 that Rudy Guiliani actually made enough of an appearance outside the confines of his precincts that I took any notice.

At that time, I would not have known he had a fanatic hatred for ferrets.

As Guiliani makes his bid for the US presidency Wolcott sheds a little light on what may be the worst choice of candidate the Republicans have to offer.

I have never understood Giuliani's fatwa against ferrets and the human beings who are devoted to them. I am fond of ferrets, though I have never owned nor even petted one. But there is something about their avid features that makes me think they would have been a natural fit for me and my apartment lifestyle back in bachelor days.

Fatwa against ferrets? Wolcott links to Michael Wolff who pulls out the stops on Guiliani and it's worth reading every delicious word.

Rudy Guiliani is nuts. He is completely off-center, self-possessed and has never done anything significantly progressive. His moment of national highlight came after two airliners controlled by other fanatics laid waste to his city and killed a good chunk of his fellow citizens. On this act, one which he did not control, he is laying the foundation for his campaign, including suggesting insisting that the only way to prevent further terrorist acts is to elect him.

So, based on that last paragraph, and the fanaticism with which Guiliani pursues even minor issues, like a ban on ferrets in New York City, you could assume that he doesn't stand a chance of being elected to the oval office.

Now, look at what is president of the United States at this time, and look at what he did to get there.

Harper owes Canadians an explanation. If we don't want an election, why is he running an election campaign?

It seems everyone has been jumping up and down about the Conservative Party attack ads on Stephane Dion. I've seen one of them.

Aside from the poor quality, there isn't much there. In fact, these things can be turned right around on the producers (Jason Kenney, et al.).

While complaining about the performance of Stephane Dion as environment minister, they dismantled everything, without regard to utility. Why? Because they simply didn't care about the environment. They still don't.

With no program or ideas of their own, the Conservatives repackaged previous Liberal programs and held them out as their own. These are the same programs the Conservatives tell us produced no results for 13 years. And you can bet your boots the only reason anything is happening with regards the environment is because Sandra Buckler got handed a poll that said Harper could lose an election over the environment.

If anything comes out of these attack ads it is a demonstration that the Conservatives are out of touch with Canadians.

Canadians don't like election campaigns. While we are very much engaged politically, we find the behaviour of the political parties during the actual campaign somewhere between disgusting and repugnant.

Television attack ads, of any kind, are viewed as aggravating nonsense. If there is a redeeming factor it is that they are restricted to the campaign itself - until now.

The Conservatives, out of touch with Canadians as they are, have not so much attacked Stephan Dion as much as they have attacked the sensibilities of Canadians. If we don't like TV attack ads during an election campaign, why would we tolerate them at any other time. If you're the one that runs them and assaults us with such crap, you're not only stupid, you're the bad guy.

While everyone is calling these ads an act of desperation, I would prefer to view them as an act of stupidity.

Then we get nasty little Stevie making this suggestion:

"Don't they owe it to the Canadian people to explain, if there would be an election, why we would have the election?" he asked.

"What would be the point of an election, especially if it would just result in another minority anyway?"

No... if you, Steve, try to float something through parliament that the majority doesn't like, YOU have to explain it. And, it's interesting that you have called the election results without actually, you know, letting us vote. So, the point of an election would be to get rid of you, Steve.

And, since Harper is so concerned about how Canadians would feel about an election you'd think he would be aware that the parts of it we don't like and don't want to be assailed with are showing up on TV this week.

So, Harper, you owe us all an explanation. Why are we having to endure an election campaign without so much as a writ?

Update: If you really want to assault your senses, Devin has captured both the Conservative ads and Dion's plans for the next parliamentary session. He asks a very valid question at the end of his post.