The Candidate

Like dipping a single toe into the lake from the dock before jumping in, Ruth-Ellen Brosseau robocalled her constituents yesterday. It was the first thing she has done to earn their trust as their MP since filling out (in whole or part) of her nomination papers.

For many on Pro Blogs, criticism of her election is beyond acceptable. At worst it's sexist. It's prejudice. It's ageist. At best, it is merely the actions indicative of sore losers. (To which I wonder whether or not shooting fish in a barrel confirms a claim that the shooter is naturally a bad shot.)

I sat at a poll on E-Day and scrutineered for the LPC. I watched as a man in his mid-40's approached the desk, took the ballot from the clerk, studied it momentarily and said, "My candidate is not on here." Confused, the clerk asked if he was in the right riding,and the man said yes and showed him his registration card. True, he was a voter of the riding. The man then said, "I thought we were voting for Prime Minister." I put my head in my hands and let out a sigh of exhaustion, disbelief, and total apathy.

I was stunned that he could vote even though he was clearly ill informed about our electoral system. I wondered whether or not a candidate showed up at his door and if so, whether he took the time to talk to them or if he just peered from his living room curtains and continued to watch TV or do something "more important" with his time. I wondered whether or not he picked up his mail and read the candidate's information, platforms, and experiences. I wonder whether at all he gave a shit about who represents him in parliament. Apparently not.

And so this is my critique of the election of Ruth-Ellen Brosseau for Berthier-Maskinongé. It is clear she didn't campaign, since she has never been to the riding. It is obvious that she was a "placeholder" candidate -- a throw away that the party used to make their books look good and to get that 308 number for the records. It is clear she doesn't know the concerns, cares or character of her riding. And moreover, the people of Berthier-Maskinongé don't care that she doesn't know them. Or tried. Or wanted to.

The people of Berthier-Maskinongé are getting what they deserve. Someone who lives 300km away that has never shown the slightest care for actually representing them beyond filling in (in whole or part) some nomination papers. The people of Berthier-Maskinongé saw a colour on the ballot, not a name. And if they did see a name it was not Ruth-Ellen Brosseau. It was Jack Layton.

Just like many people of Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar saw "Stephen Harper" rather than Kelly Block on the ballot. This was a factor in stopping Nettie Wiebe short from winning the seat. This is what has kept the people of Calgary-West in a CPC stasis and even the CPC party members of that riding from electing anyone other than Rob Anders who will represent them accordingly in the HoC. This is what keeps dozens of CPC ridings in a stranglehold despite objections from ordinary people about the views of their MP, their hypocritical actions, and general misrepresentation. But, Harper has done a "good job" with the economy. And so, 'X' away!

Will Berthier-Maskinongé be misrepresented by Brosseau? Maybe not. She could be a fine MP. COULD. If she cares. If she works hard. If she basically does the exact opposite of what earned her those 22,000 some votes. Right now Jack is playing peek-a-boo with her because he has to. Otherwise she'll get eaten alive.

Let me be clear, she'll get torn apart NOT because she is a woman. NOT because she is a single mother. NOT because she worked at a restaurant.

But because she did not campaign.

To which many Progressive Bloggers are hearing a collective "SO?" from New Democrats. This is a shame.

To justify The Great "SO?" a strategy is devised: Ruth-Ellen will earn their votes after the fact. First, send a robocall. Second, visit the riding and maybe knock on some doors. Third, hold a town hall and meet with municipal and provincial public officials. Fourth, MOVE to the riding (she can afford it) and fifth, stand up in parliament and let their voices be heard.

2015 is a long time away. Long enough to get to know the people who elected you. Use it wisely, Ruth-Ellen. And good luck, cause you'll need it.

* UPDATE *

Apparently things must get worse before they get better for The Candidate.

Confessions of an Election Hawk and Red Tory

I'll confess it. I'll admit it and put it on my sleeve. I was one of the election hawks in March. I did not get the government I voted for, nor the representative, but I got the men and women I deserve. A right wing neoconservative majority that effectively and efficiently turned down the volume on policy debate and our core values as Canadians by ducking and dodging anything that resembled taking a principled stand.

As a self described Red Tory the defeat of the Liberal Party looked a lot like my former party of choice, the Progressive Conservatives. A party that was declared "irrelevant" by the media and thereafter accepted as such with no shred of criticism or reflection by the Canadian public. What came of that was a radical Reform party and even crazier Canadian Alliance. A take over and an election later the Canadian public nodded along with their conservative overlords as each time they were asked to select a parliament returned greater gains for the "centrist" Harper.

Two nights ago Jack dodged the ultimate bullet that could destroy the luster and attractiveness of the NDP -- the chance to govern a minority parliament and the inevitable loss of confidence which would stamp the party with a big #Fail. But, thank God, Jack does not have to fail at doing his job of incessantly opposing without actually being able to propose and execute his platform.

In his victory speech Jack talked a lot about protecting pensions. Protecting health care. Protecting Canadian families and jobs. He said nothing about merging. He said nothing about cooperation with the LPC. He said he would "propose" to the CPC rather than "oppose" anything and everything. Well, that's convenient seeing as how he has no choice but to accept the will of Stephen Harper which he is perfectly comfortable with as it keeps the mystery of what an NDP government would look like alive for another election.

I'm only hearing rumblings of an NDP-LPC merger from Liberals. No New Democrat has even contemplated such an act. After all, they are now the govenrment-in-waiting. And I suspect the possibility of said merger would only become viable if in 2015 the Conservatives are given another majority mandate: extending their streak in power to a sickeningly long 13 years. Moreover, even if the NDP did muse about a merger during this parliamentary session in preparation for the 42nd CDN Election, why should the LPC do it? What is to gain?

I know what real Canadian conservatives -- the Red Tories -- thought and hoped for when the Canadian Alliance aggressively over took the party. Big promises of a Red Tory Council! Big leadership hopefuls and party leaders like Belinda Stronach, Tony Clement, Jim Prentice and Peter MacKay. Where are they now? Under Harper, there is no Deputy PM. Sorry Peter. Under Harper there is no progressive policy on the environment or social issues. Sorry Belinda, sorry Jim. Under Harper politics trumps ideology and best practice. Sorry Tony.

And so it would be within a "merged" NDP-LPC. Only a Harper supermajority of Mulroney proportions would make things so bleak that both parties would look at each other and reconsider their options. Today, tomorrow, and the days after that; the attractiveness of a merger is 1-sided and only the weakest and most desperate Liberals will advocate for it. Only those who think that there is nothing left. If that is the case, join the NDP yourselves and get out of the way of change.

I took three calls last night from friends. Friends who said they were proud of the work that I did despite a devastating loss at the local and national level. Friends that told me that they were stunned with the election results and that they have never been ones for party politics, but they are close and extremely interested in joining the Liberal Party and being a part of a new beginning. These are the people who the party brass should welcome with open arms. We can embrace one another and be champions of our values; or we can get in line and knock on the door of Stornoway. I choose to fight for my values.

There will be no Liberal-Democrat party, it would be the Democratic party. And centrists would find themselves in deep conflict with the vast majority of a left-wing party. Out of fear centrists would be marginalized because to speak out against the "united" message would mean even greater weakness than if we had been on our own and one more defeat would be "unbearable" to "the country." I didn't buy that when the Alliance shoved a sock in the mouth of centrist PCs in late 2003 and early 2004 and I won't buy it now.

I'm not a party man. I'm a principled Canadian. And as such, I have been wandering the political landscape for most of my life. I am not against cooperation. I am not opposed to a coalition. I am not unwilling to compromise in a merger. But the conditions have to be right. And today they are not. We must stand up. We must dust ourselves off and get to work. I did it once before and as a result came this blog. I'll do it again and the result will be not words floating in cyberspace, but shoes on the ground.

Will you join me?

He'd throw Canada under the bus too

He ordered the ejection of Bill Casey. Garth Turner. Helena Guergis.

He sent Shelly Glover to throw Tom Flanagan under the bus.

Pat Strogan, fired. Munir Sheikh, resigned on principle.

Students ejected by the RCMP on CPC orders from Harper rallies after being Facebook checked.

***

If you thought for a moment that this is your Canada, you're wrong. On May 2, vote for your opposition candidate to fire Harper!

G&M on Ignatieff: Energy and urgency. He was hot.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was fiery on tonight's national leaders debate. He covered every topic under the sun and reminded Canadians exactly why we are having this election. There were a few stumbles, these debates are never perfect. But he was on point when he needed to be and nailed Harper and his neo-Conservatives on everything that mattered: health care, spending, public safety, democracy.

Harper was the most polished of the bunch; but then again, what else would you expect from a career politician? Harper's favourite line of the night: "that's not true." His defence of poor public policy choices, circumventing parliamentary procedure, covering up the costs of billions in spending was, essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?" And let me tell you something. It. Was. Effective.

Smirking throughout the debate, Harper shrugged off of everything. He even suggested that the debate was wasting his time from working "on the economy." Wow. Harper acted as if the event was below him. But then again, he's been that way about the whole election. In fact, he has run his government that way ever since coming into power by employing a "My way or the highway" attitude. To be sure, most of the business the government has been "getting done" was either by making every bill before the house a government bill, and therefore a motion of confidence, or by pork-barreling.

Harper said that cops support killing the long-gun registry, and cited former OPP Chief Julian Fantino, CPC incumbent for Vaughan, as one of Canada's trusted police officers who believes the registry makes "duck hunters" into "criminals." Harper didn't mention (neither did Ignatieff) that Fantino supported the registry while he was OPP Chief -- before he was against it as a Conservative MP. Harper said that he's been in support of multiculturalism and immigration. And yet, his minister for immigration has been making it more and more difficult for family reunification between permanent residents and their families overseas. Harper said spending billions on jets was a purchase far, far away in the future. But neglected to mention that the contract is on the table for today.

At the end of the day, watching Harper was like watching someone before a court they feel is illegitimate. Harper doesn't have to defend anything that he doesn't think he is guilty of. And that is his election strategy from day 1: this thing is a waste of time. A kangaroo court. A charade taking him out of his office and away from "important" work. It permeates his campaign as he ejects students and veterans out of his rallies filled with card-carrying partisans. And his response to removing undecided voters from his rallies: it's not my fault; a staffer did it.

Admit nothing. Don't address your opponents or critics in the eye. Repeat the party lines that we should stay the course. This is how Harper will creep into majority territory.

Unless we act.

Unless you call up your Opposition candidate and volunteer an evening, a weekend, E-Day. I'm doing it in Winnipeg. It's time, especially after tonight, to put our money where our mouths are.

A Letter to Mr. Ignatieff: It's time to get personal against attack ads

Mr. Ignatieff,

On the Liberal campaign trail in Winnipeg there is one thing that we are hearing consistently: Canadians are sick and tired of attack ads. They hate them.

It disrupts governance, creates an atmosphere of constant electioneering, and is just plain un-Canadian. And yet, they persist through this election. An election that is being held because the governing party was found to be committing perjury in the House of Commons. A party that has proven to be ^NOT concerned with formal rules, conventions, or courtesy.

No one knows this more than you, Mr. Ignatieff. Stephane Dion surely knows it. And to a certain extent, Stephen Harper himself. (But hey, Steve's motto has got to be "If you cannot beat 'em, join 'em.") Kim Campbell did it. Chretien did it. Martin and Mulroney. They all have! And we are tired of it.

My question to you, sir, is this: will you propose reform to pre-writ election advertising? Put a ceiling on what parties can spend during session on partisan ads on radio, TV, and internet.

Moreover, will you propose instituting a US-style "I endorse this message" closing line on each and every political ad on the radio or television, so voters can hear from the mouth of the party leader that they are willing to stand behind their personal attacks?

In essence, I'm asking you to make Canada aware of Senator Dennis Dawson's bill S-227 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses) and to put it at the top of your party's list of parliamentary reforms.

The only reason Harper can shrug off ALL of these attacks against you is because he doesn't really have to get up there and say them himself. A voice on a TV or radio will do that for him and he can act like "the party" is doing something that the "prime minister" is not.

I believe that proposing these kinds of reforms would be extremely popular with everyday Canadians. I believe people could go to the polls and vote for you because you're willing to put up or shut up. Canadians want some peace and quiet during parliament. They don't want to hear attack ads and party messages every other week! Granted, most of it comes from the Conservatives. And guess what -- even CONSERVATIVES are sick of it! It's exhausting. And the party that proposes to give Canadians some relief will be rewarded.

It's time to get personal against attack ads and propose legislation to curb this dreadful behavior that no one likes. It could very well be the game-changer progressives need.

Signed,
Dylan