KW Celebrates Canada's Golden Moment!

We did it!

Shortly after the game, me and my posse headed down to King St. in Uptown Waterloo and celebrated Team Canada's gold medal performance. The atmosphere was electric and the crowd extatic as they changed "Thank-You Sid-ney!" "Ca-na-da!" and "Louuuuu!"

There were more than just a few Waterlooans wearing Iginla apparel and I felt right at home, just like being on the Red Mile!

I'll never forget this game. I'll never forget Crosby's goal and I'll never forget marching down King St. side by side my fellow Canadian brothers and sisters.

Way to go Canada!

Best. Olympics. Ever.

Attention Canada: Patriotism is not one-dimensional

Stephen Brunt of the Globe and Mail seems to be ecstatic over the amount of flag waving, anthem singing, Canadians he's seeing at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games. His response to this "new" Canadian patriotism is: finally! Finally, Canadians are acting like real patriots. Moreover, he posits that should these displays of national pride end come Monday morning, we'll be less of a country. Well, maybe not quite. He concludes with these final thoughts:

Public displays of patriotism would seem unlikely to become the norm. But given the opportunity, given the excuse, who would be surprised now if this happens again? The want seems to be there, the need seems to be there, and maybe it has been there percolating all along - the desire to join together and celebrate ourselves, to be a tribe.

As unpleasant as it may seem, Canada was founded as a distinct British society in contrast to the United States of America. Our forefathers and foremothers fought long and hard to keep Canada Canadian - which does not mean "anti-American" rather, a nation explicitly unique in the British North American context. Juxtaposed to this approach was the American route were the Americans who defined their independence as anti-British.

We were not founded on revolution. We did not need to "fight" for our freedoms, and contrary to popular belief, we did not go to the Queen, hat in hand, and ask politely for an identity.

Personally, I do not wish for the country to be swept up into a tribal form of patriotism. (Didn't the FLQ Crisis teach us anything about where tribalism gets us?) Furthermore, I do not believe that flying the flag in your yard, or singing the national anthem the loudest before a sporting event, constitutes being a Canadian. Expression of identity does not accumulate in what we put on a piece of cloth and run up a pole. National identity is not concentrated entirely in a song. Nor does painting your face or purchasing a hockey jersey (as much fun as it is).

I'm concerned about the media hysteria over this "new" patriotism - a particular form of patriotism that is not new to us at all. We know exactly what this looks like. It looks like the US.

Which isn't a bad thing, just don't pretend that what we're witnessing at the games is anything new to sport or to a country. I am concerned that with all this talk about how "new" and "exciting" the Olympic spirit is, any measure of national identity or expression will be measured by the 2010 games - furthering the myth of what it means to be a patriot.

These Olympic games are a big moment for the country. For once, everyday Canadians are the ones sending the message of what it means to be Canadian to the rest of the world - unimpeded by politicians and their partisan schemes. I'll never forget where I was when Alex Bilodeau won the first gold medal ever on Canadian soil. I'll never forget Jerome Iginla's opening goal of the hockey tournament against the Norwegians. And I'll certainly remember the outcome of tomorrow's gold medal game until I die.

But these memories are not the entirety of what I love about being Canadian and living in this wonderful place. I'm more than my geography. My Canada is more than a flag. My identity does not rest on gold medals, world records, or hockey pucks (notwithstanding those at the back of the US net).

When these games are over and the flags are retired to shoeboxes, garage walls, or cottage homes - don't feel sorry for the country. We'll be okay. We will still be us. We just won't be the mini-Americans everyone thinks we are.

Roughriders sign Prechae Rodriguez!

Newly minted GM Brendan Taman has made his first big move for the Green and White acquiring former Hamilton Tiger-Cat WR Prechae Rodriguez in exchange for Rob Nicholson, a third-round pick in the 2011 CFL draft and the rights to an undisclosed pick off of the Riders negotiation list.

Nicholson was alright, but nothing spectacular. He's a non-import so that makes him valuable in the CFL. The 3rd round draft pick, that was an after-thought to perhaps sweeten the deal. What I question, is giving away the rights to an unknown player on the negotiation list. Just who is this player?

Just to give you an idea of the types of calibre we're talking about, here are some current players formerly on the Riders negotiation lists: Dalton Bell (QB - Ssk), Jamal Robertson (RB - T.O. 2009), James Patrick (CB - Ssk), Ray Williams (LB - Ssk 2009, Pittsburgh Steelers '10) and Keith Shologan (LB - Ssk).

And if that's not clear enough, last year the Riders had 17 players on their 35-player negotiation list who could have been selected in the NFL draft. 10-12 of them were free-agents who were being actively pursued by NFL teams. The remainder were being eyed by the CFL and the Riders in particular.

In short, the Riders have a good history with their negotiation lists and many who they have brought up through that avenue have turned out to be key players on our team. I wonder: who are we letting slip through our fingers? The highly secretive negotiation list makes for an interesting story which begs the question: can what we do not know really hurt us? Eventually, we'll find out who that player is (whether he signs with the Hamilton club or not) and eventually we will get a chance to see him play. If it is another Rey Williams, it could be to our detriment. A Dalton Bell, maybe not.

In any event, Rodriguez brings back to the Riders what we lost when Dominguez left the team after a string of bad knee injuries: height. Height and speed. Fantuz looks like he has a reach of 6'4" when he stretches - but we need that double threat. Rodriguez is 6'5" and a monster in the end zone.

Imagine, Dressler and Rodriguez on the outside; Fantuz, Bagg and Getzlaf on the inside with a little Clermont every now and then... yikes! Who do you cover?

Continually, the Riders improve their receiving corps and I believe with the addition of Rodriguez we have the best passing unit in the West - if not the league. Which brings me back to our ground game.

With just Hugh Charles and Stu Foord at RB, we might have a long road ahead of us. In the CFL, you need a successful running game or you're toast. From news clips here and there, it looks as if Cates may not be back with the club. The Argo's former RB Jamal Robertson is also floating around in free-agency and today Tyler Ebell was released from the Ti-Cats.

Foord is a great local boy who the fans love to see score touchdowns but he, right now, does not look like a premier running back in this league right now. In my opinion, Charles is the front-runner and ought to stay that way with Szarka and Foord going on and off at tailback. Who backs up Charles? Dorsey? I'd leave Dorsey to handle returns. Neal Hughes? He's alright, but in that case you might as well have Foord back here. Maybe we bring in Ebell. Maybe we make Robertson an offer at the last minute. However, in the ideal situation, Cates would be back.

Prechae is a great move and I think Taman is right on the money. Our receiving corps was great as-is, but we were missing something: height. Rodriguez fills that void and because of that, we ought to be one of the best offensive units going into the 2010 season.

Go Riders!

Progressive Coalition Gov't: A dish best served quietly

I've got a beef with all of you. Well, not all of those in the progressive blogosphere, but particularly those blogging about a progressive coalition as if it's as simple as running a strategic election or holding another fancy press conference. My main problem with the idea of the NDP, Liberals and Greens launching a cooperative electoral scheme (only running the best Opposition, er, Coalition candidates in CPC ridings where they have the greatest chance of winning; and not running candidates against other coalition incumbents) is that it alienates the voters! While members of the Greens, Dippers and Liberals might like the idea, those who are unaffiliated with any party and those undecided voters might viscerally react against a strategic ballot and stay at home or vote Conservative on principle!

Forget about the $1.75 in per-vote party funding, that's the political reason for the respective parties to carefully examine a cooperative campaign. The electorate's reason to be wary of a cooperative campaign is the fact that the NDP, LPC and GPC are not interchangeable. A Liberal representative and NDP MP are not two in the same. As odd as it may seem, the GPC, LPC and NDP are not cut from the same cloth but stacked in different piles.

Furthermore, all this strategic electioneering is making the Conservative Party look indestructible and advances the public opinion that they are the strongest party to lead. Is this the message we want to send? That nothing short of a grand progressive coalition will bring down the CPC machine?

There are two routes to a progressive Coalition government: quiet and loud. Your quiet option is traditional, an agreement signed in principle mailed to the Governor General should the CPC win another minority government before parliament resumes. Let the chips fall where they may and hope the GG is bold enough to allow the majority of the House to rule.

Your loud options include,

1. a fancy pre-election (or mid-campaign) press conference where all progressive Opposition parties (GPC, LPC and NDP) get together and pledge to cooperate with one another in each riding and propose to the GG the idea of a coalition government should the Liberals not win the election
2. A strategic selection of only the best Opposition candidates to defeat CPC incumbents and not run against each other in Opposition incumbent EDAs.
   
3. Organization of strategic candidates from the three progressive opposition parties under 1 name and leader: the Progressive Party of Canada led by Michael Ignatieff. Opposition incumbents would run under the Progressive banner and the party would have a collaborative campaign (formulated by a multi-partisan caucus of LPC, Green and NDP leadership and current MPs) and pledge policies and priorities that all parties can work towards. Lastly, I would propose that membership in the Progressive Party be free for any Canadian citizen so that all can participate in the platform building and riding organization/candidate selection.
   

There are pros and cons to each option within the Quiet and Loud camps. I prefer the quiet approach since it does not alienate voters and respects our current multiparty democracy. However, of the loud options, the third is the clearest, most collaborative and democratic option. Candidates would not need to be selected by party, instead, they'd be chosen by the new EDA Progressive party membership regardless of what former party each candidate belonged. This way, parliamentary representation is placed at the forefront of candidacy selection over partisan politics.

The biggest question following the creation of an all-progressive party would be when would said party disband and how would they go forward after an election? If they won a minority, they'd need the backing of the Bloc. If they lost, the experiment would most likely end immediately - despite the fact that they might need two elections and a sitting in parliament to solidify their presence in Canadian politics.

If they won, the first act of business (in a majority situation) should be to bring electoral reform to the country in the form of a national referendum. In a minority situation they'd get to work on the business they agreed to in their platform and once the job was done an election would be called and they could go their separate ways or remain united.

If we're going to talk about a progressive Coalition government, we'll need to get serious about it and put our money where our mouths are and stop acting like partisans - or we'll have to end the discussion acknowledging that by not remembering the public backlash against the December 08 Dion-Layton coalition proposal we're doing the country a major disservice. Nay, a gross violation which could give the Harperites a majority government overnight.

Get outta town: CPC MP Vilifies Riel

In a newsletter to his constituency, Edmonton CPC MP Peter Goldring is trying to rally his troops in blocking the establishment of a statue of Louis Riel on Parliament Hill because it would be tribute to civil disobedience.

Of course, Goldring is only trying to "set the record straight" (I can only imagine that said "record" is left-wing) on Riel:

In the newsletter, titled The Truth About Louis Riel, Goldring calls the former Métis leader a "villain" who has blood on his hands from leading the Northwest and Red River rebellions.

Local Winnipeg members of parliament are jumping on Goldring for these ridiculous statements. One is Liberal MP for Winnipeg South Centre, Anita Neville, and the other is Shelly "I Don't Know Who Tom Flanagan Is" Glover.

Glover, a member of the Metis community herself, is appalled that one of her own would hold these kinds of views. (Really?) But beyond agreeing to disagree, Glover and Goldring are still pals in the CPC caucus.

Neville, on the other hand, has called for Goldring to publically apologize to the citizens of Manitoba.

The real villian on the Hill is none other than Goldring himself, whose characterization of Riel is absurd. But that being said, this kind of news is not new to me. Growing up in Western Canada, you'll hear this kind of stuff from ordinary Canadians. Underlying many arguments that I've heard concerning Riel's "terrorist" or "traitorous" activity is racism towards Canada's Aboriginal and Metis people. It's truly sad and disgusting.

If you're reading Peter, Canada does not need another Riel revisionist like yourself. Apologize immediately and retract your statements.

March 2010: Another socialist budget

Welly, welly welly... Layton arrives at 24 Sussex to give his two-cents regarding the recalibration of our economy just a few weeks before the restoration of our Canadian democracy (read: parliament). And what is the result of this fruitful discussion? The agreement that jobs ought to be the priority of the new budget and the next "phase" of the Conservative's war against sensible economics (read: budget).

The NDP and the CPC have been pretty close as of late, which ought to take all of us e-politicos (of all stripes) back to Paul Martin's last budget he tabled as Prime Minister; only to have the NDP bring him down a few months later. At the time, pundits and opposition parliamentarians, including the current Prime Minister and his army of flying monkeys, called Martin's September budget "socialist." The Opposition Conservative Party called on their loyalists to ramp up their propaganda machines and labelled Martin as "obsessed" with power.

Layton seemed pleased at the time, using the federal Liberals as a shield against the unpopularity of the September 2005 budget, only to stab the Prime Minister in the back and call the "honeymoon" over after the NDP's $4.6 billion dollar priorities were secured financially. Not only did the NDP pull a wham-bam-thank-you-maam on the governing Liberal party, they teamed up with the Conservatives to call an election on the eve of the United Nations Climate Change conference - effectively forfitting Canada's position as a leader in the global climate change fight.

The rest is history. Harper cuts taxes into the black and then tables the largest spending budget in the history of our country until we hit the red. And in the red we will stay if Harper throws some New Democrat goodies into the March budget to buy Layton's vote. But that won't save Harper from a summer election.

Now, that is not to say that I do not think that jobs should be the cornerstone of the next budget. Indeed, I am of the opinion that we need job growth more than anything right now. I also agree with the NDP that we ought not to cut business taxes. Moreover, I'm pleased that Layton was the one to go to 24 Sussex rather than Ignatieff. Why? Because whenever the NDP curls up to the government-of-the-day everything seems nice and multipartisan and collaborative. Until the PM realises that he has placed a viper into the cradle of his budgetary baby. The public wants the NDP to have nothing to do with any budget, and he could pay at the polls. And that's saying nothing of the hypocrisy and irony of the entire situation which ought to be apparent to anyone who has payed the slightest of attention to federal politics since Harper crowned himself emperor of Canada.

Sit back and relax Iggy as Buchard guts the PQ/Bloc and paves a new way for federalist politics in Quebec, and the NDP get their hands dirty in a CPC budget. All the better to secure your place as the next government of Canada.

Rider Rant: And now, some REAL sports news

Rider Nation! Andy Fantuz will be back with the Green and White. Remember last season when I blogged this Fantuz contract-extention, I did not mention that there was a clause in it that allowed for him to test his popularity in the NFL before the 2010 free agency period. I can only guess that there wasn't any interest south of the border, but there's plenty of interest in keeping him in Regina. While the details of the contract were not announced, I am going to suspect that the deal he signed was the three-year agreement from last October. Three more years of Fantuz, doesn't that have a nice ring to it?

Meanwhile, I'm sure the Riders new GM Brendan Taman is hard at work making sure we won't lose any more key players (or coaches) to the NFL or otherwise. Players approaching free agency worth keeping an eye on are: Wes Cates, Eddie Davis, James Patrick, Tad Kornegay, and Marcus Adams.

Cates is a player of interest for me for a number of reasons. One, I find that his style of play can be explosive and reliable. However, last season Cates either had a 100-yard game or a 30-yard game. In other words, he was either a factor or he was invisible. His best season was in 2008 when he averaged 76.8 yards per game in 16 starts. Last year he played the same number of games and only averaged 58.2 yards/game. Furthermore, last year he wasn't anywhere near his 15 TDs scored in 2008. That said, 2008 was one of the most tumultuous years in Rider history and the organization really leaned on Cates. Last year, Dressler and the "Canadian Air Force" put up huge numbers every game and did the majority of scoring from the air.

Now, if Cates reaches free agency, should we worry? Well, maybe not if RB Jamal Robertson is in the same boat. Last year, Robertson dressed for all 18 games and averaged 57.2 yards per game. Not bad considering he was on the worst team in the league. Considering that Robertson was the only bright spot in the Argo dressing room it is amazing that it is mid-February and he has not been resigned.

Stu Foord is also a potential free-agent for the Rider and I won't be surprised if he is signed before the deadline. I'm not that big of a fan of Stu. He's ok. I think that Hugh Charles is a better RB and that it was a mistake to abandon Charles after he exploded out of the gate early in the 09 season. That said, is Charles the new Cates? Will Miller and Taman lean on Charles if Cates is set free? I'm not thrilled with that scenario, but it does not upset me. But even as I type these words I know that Stu Foord, if re-signed and Cates not, will be our #1 back over Charles by the way Foord was given way more time on the field in 09. And the idea of Foord being our main running back almost makes me nauseous.

Re-sign Cates for a 1-year plus option and continue to develop Charles. Szarka probably won't be back (given that he was elected to Regina's City Council last fall) and let Foord take his spot at full back. Well, I'm glad we sorted that out!

Eddie Davis is a no brainer. He's the leader of our secondary and I cannot imagine letting him go and bringing someone else in. That said, Omarr Morgan was just re-signed (a player I wouldnt' have chosen over Davis) so are the Riders preparing for the departure of Eddie? Who'll step up and take his place? McKenzie? Frazier? If the Riders are going to go shopping at DB, they'd better look at Byron Parker. But then again, who wouldn't? Kornegay is another DB that ought to be brought back in. He'd be cheaper than Davis, so if money is the issue (which it always is) then Kornegay should be kept in the organization and developed further.

At saftey, James Patrick improved exponentially from 08 to 09 and ought to be kept. And Chunky Adams; every team needs a guy named "Chunky." In all seriousness, losing Stevie Baggs was huge. I wish him well in the NFL for the Cardinals, but if things don't work out I hope he comes straight back to Saskatchewan for the last third of the '10 season and the playoff push. (Same goes for Rey Williams as he heads to the Steeler organization in Pittsburgh.) While Adams plays defensive tackle and Baggs played defensive end, we need all the consistency we can keep on the D for the next year.

In the end, I'd like to see Cates, Patrick, Kornegay and Davis back with the 2010 team. The coaching exodus to Winnipeg seems to have halted (unless they create more positions for the rest of our staff) and I'm looking forward to seeing who Taman will bring in to fill the open spots for Offensive and Special Teams coordinators.

With the success of being first in the West and having a second grey cup appearance in three years, we were bound to see some guys leave to test free agency and give the NFL a shot. I think we're a deep enough team offensively to allow for some free agents to go, but I'm not sure if our defense will be an improvement from last year if we do not make some moves. Free agency kicks in at midnight tomorrow, and I can only hope that some magic happens if we're hoping to make a run for the Cup in 2010.

Prorogue Bay: Captain Harper and the Scurvy Dogs

Yaaarrrgh! Hoist ye sails maties! We retreat westerly to ye Vancouver paradise! What's this? Great Uncle John's Corncob pipe! Politically aware Canadians on the high seas!

Braid, Glover, Clement, Del Mastro to the Starboard side! Ready...aim...Talk! Talk! Talk! Talk!

Braid pulls a Glover: Legitimate Discussion (Almost) Prorogued

Glover (g-love-r): a Conservative Party defense mechanism which attempts to deny knowledge of people, places, or things that they have been called onto national television to discuss. A glover was first employed by CPC member of parliament Shelly Glover on Power and Politics, when she stated that she "didn't know" who Tom Flanagan was to deflect his critique of her Supreme Leader, PM S.J. Harper.

Kudos to Bowie and Impolitical for bringing the blogosphere Peter Braid's sad attempt to smear the Opposition from behind the Canadian Armed Forces.

When asked about the ten-percenter's that the panel had been assembled to discuss, Peter Braid goes into talking-box mode. Clark interrupts him and tells Braid to answer the question. In response, Pete says he "has not seen the ten-percenter" but has "read" about it.

Pete, say it ain't so! Are you really going to duplicate Shelly Glover? Why did you agree to go on television to talk about this when you have not seen it?

Oh... right... to try and snuff out the possibility of legitimate discussion on the CPC's slanderous ten-percenters.

It must be awful to be one of these backbenchers who are sent to the media' slaughter. I mean, seriously. They're put up against mega-politicos from the Liberal and New Democratic parties (Goodale, Davis, Rae, Dewar, etc.) and belittled by the hosts (Solomon and now Clark) all for the glory of their (minority) Empire. Peter, have you no self respect?

If I was Peter, I would have cried. Maybe then Dewar wouldn't have aimed that emasculating monologue at him. Ouch!

Anyways, good hustle Peter. There's always next time. (Well, maybe not.)

Harper's Cat speaks!

BLOGOSPHERE! I might be late to this news, but for those who are not "in the know," we finally have an inside source at 24 Sussex - Mr. Mittens, the Harper Family cat. Check it out.

My favourite tweets are as follows:

• He laughed at Jack for hurting his back. Then he said he would never hurt himself because he never exercises. 11:14 AM Feb 1st, 2010
• He called from Switzerland to say we had to burn every Margaret Atwood novel in the house. 11:09 AM Jan 28th, 2010
• He only buys me blue sweaters. And seriously, find me a cat that actually likes wearing them... 5:19 PM Nov 16th, 2009

That little scamp! What IS he going to tweet next?

Another "elitist" comes out of the woodwork

Eep! I hope Tony Clement is ready for another 15-second sound bite on how only "elitists" care about Afghan detainees.

Errol Mendes, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, spoke before a meeting on foreign affairs organized by opposition MPs on Parliament Hill Wednesday. [The] top Canadian legal expert has called the Conservative government "unconstitutional" for refusing to hand over key documents to a Parliamentary committee looking into the Afghan detainee abuse scandal.

Members of the committee from the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois demanded to see uncensored records on Afghan prisoner transfers last fall. The Tories refused, citing security concerns.

But Mendes said the Conservatives have no legal grounds on which to decline the request.

"I think what this committee and what all Canadians should focus on is whether the government is knowingly acting in an unconstitutional manner and daring this Parliament, the opposition and Canadians to do anything about it -- just as they're daring Canadians to do anything about it with the prorogation,"

Yikes! Those are some pretty harsh words. Too bad the "government" couldn't defend itself today. Not as though they didn't have the opportunity to step up and restate their position for the "unofficial" record.

Mendes is a brave guy to come forward and state the hard facts about the Harper government's unconstitutional behavior. I'm sure the Con War-Room is already working on discrediting his character and spinning his words.

However, as long as "reporters" like Smith are on the Hill -- downplaying the importance of parliamentary work and undermining the issue of the government's cover-up of documents that would lead to the ultimate resolution of this matter -- this issue might never gain real traction outside the National Capital Region during prorogation.

That's why the importance of groups like CAPP and the progressive blogosphere are cannot be understated. We've got a long way to go until March 3rd, and come hell or high water, we'll bring this ReformaTory government down.

Whose really putting on the "partisan show?"

Could it be the Opposition MPs who are forming "all party" committee meetings on the Hill? Or is it the CPC MPs who are "consulting" their constituents on economic issues? Let's breakdown the "work" of my representatives during prorogation.

As a student, I live in Waterloo during my graduate studies. My local representative, CPC MP Peter Braid, is not holding any town-hall meetings or open houses for members of the public. Instead, he has created a special "conciliatory" email address in which citizens can tell him their concerns, queries, and suggestions regarding the state of the Canadian economy, budget2010@peterbraid.ca. However, Braid does regularly tweet, so anyone can check up on his day-to-day activities if they wanted. Let's see what he's doing right now! Well, he hasn't tweeted anything today, but on the 27th of January he was assisting foreign journalists at RIM Park in KW in preparation for the G8 and G20 meetings... that are in June. He was also active on CBC's "Test the Nation" challenge and thought it would be "uncool" to "beat the nerds" two days earlier on the 25th.

Clearly, there's no partisan show going on here... just old fashioned politicking.

Now, my permanent residence is in Calgary, where Diane Ablonczy is my representative. She is doing a bit better than the CPC rookie, Peter Braid, as she is holding a constituency town-hall meeting on February 9th at Foothills Alliance Church from 7:30-9pm.

Not bad, Diane. Except the rest of her calendar is empty.

Obviously, she's either too busy to put on a partisan show, or she, like most Calgary MPs, realize how disconnected their constituents are and therefore only put forth the bare minimum acceptable for anyone in politics.

Turning to the Opposition, their displays of partisanship have a little more flare. Coming together for "all party" meetings -- which do not include the Conservatives since they took their ball and went home to go talk about what NEXT to do with said ball (...maybe dribble it a little?) -- and calling forward witnesses to talk about the Afghan detainee torture allegations, which will include some respectable people like former professors and retired Colonel's.

While the Opposition is putting on a "partisan show" at least it has merit. The Conservative "consultations" are clearly more smoke than mirrors, and Canadians are not willing to buy their foggy excuses. So what is an Opposition to do? Work! How about that?

Now, Roger Smith might as well wish the Opposition to slink back to their constituencies and tweet all day about the drivel that they call "real work" while parliament is closed. Hell, maybe even hold a constituency meeting (if their constituents are so lucky)! But I applaud the Opposition for at least doing what they can to advance the issues of Canadians.

Some people might comment on the CTV article that Ignatieff is the only one who "cares" about these issues (as if the CPC MPs actually represent a majority of Canadians). Or perhaps that this display is "obnoxious," which is what Lisa from BC thinks:

Lisa from BC said,

This is getting obnoxious. Iggy is putting so much energy in making the Conservatives look bad, but in doing this he is really making himself and his party look bad. He is not actually getting anything done except get his name in the paper as often as possible...which is quite frankly getting annoying. I for one am tired of reading about Iggy. I want to hear about things that are actually getting done and not what Iggy wants us to think is not getting done. This is all just so pathetic, and all this publicity seeking behavior is at the taxpayers expense! Shame on you Iggy! Shame on you!

The taxpayers expense, eh? Peter Braid's tweeting was done on the taxpayers dime. Checking his 2010 budget consultation email address, also on your dime. Going onto TV and playing against "the nerds" -- yup! You paid for it, sister. Those ten-percenters I got about the now-defunct Conservative crime bills, the ones that were killed due to prorogation, wasted dollars. Money that was literally planned to be wasted by the PMO. Ablonczy's town-hall, her salary, her lazy mornings in the breakfast nook and telephone calls to caucus; all paid by you, Lisa.

If you think that Ignatieff is standing on a soap-box on the Hill and that none of the witnesses' he's called forward will be of ANY use to the issue at hand, well, then I don't quite know what to say. I guess, the truth is that Ignatieff is showing up to work and at least you now have the luxury of criticising him for what he's doing, as opposed to our Conservative representatives where we will just have to take their word that they are "consulting" people.

We have an Opposition that is going to show up not just at a press-release, photo-op, or for thirty seconds before ducking into a closed-door meeting with "businesses," but rather, they're going to the House. Your House. Where their actions are public and they are exposing themselves to people like you -- who are waiting for the chance to critique their every move.

Maybe they should have gone away. Maybe they should have extended their Christmas holidays. Then they wouldn't have to face the barrage of the galactically stupid.

RCI on Short Memories: Del Mastro Edition

Kudos to Scott Tribe for blogging this MacLean's story.

Dean Del Mastro should remember that it was the media's proliferation of the New Democrat's diabolical false-accusation of Ralph Goodale (leading to an unprecedented RCMP inquiry during the middle of an election) in December of '05 that essentially swept him and the rest of his ReformaTory pals into government the following January.

You've got to have a short memory when you try to bite the hand that fed you just 4 years ago.

What goes up, must come down Del Mastro. No one should know the consequences of a snowballing public opinion than the Conservatives, as it was that Goodale accusation that caused an avalanche of support practically overnight for them.

When will Harper's talking-boxes recognize that being "just like the previous government" won't cut it for Canadians?

LPC gains ground in the area of "Consistency"

It's true folks, everything is better in HD -- Harris-Decima that is.

I'm impressed with the HD poll because, for once, their polling covers more than a week (Jan 21-31) and their sample size is larger than usual (2,000). The results are nothing astonishing, the LPC and CPC are tied at 32% points a piece, with the NDP at 15% and the GPC at 9%.

However, as Gregg outlines in his analysis, the Liberals are making key inroads in places like the 905 (in which, surprisingly, the NDP has taken a terrible dive since the early days of prorogation - from nearly 20% to 8%), female voters (up 5% points, 28 to 23), and are putting some good ground in between themselves and the Conservatives in Quebec (15% points).

Iggy leads overall in Ontario (for the first time since September) by 5% points, which could signal the return of their historical dominance. Concerning BC, however, it seems that the fate of the Liberals rests on the sway of uncommitted Green voters.

What might be the most worrying aspect (for Conservatives) of the HD poll today, is the fact that it is consistent with pretty much every other poll produced in the month of January. I think that it's good news for the Liberals that they are not seeing huge spikes in their popularity. Just because the LPC isn't at 38% despite Harper's maniacal strategy to shut down democracy, doesn't reflect that people hate Ignatieff or that the LPC isn't truly "capitalizing" on the situtation -- it means that there's a slow burn going on.

Here's a winter analogy: if your car is stuck in the snow, putting the hammer to the floor will just spin your tires. You need to rock back and forth, gain some traction, and slowly edge your way out. Iggy is rocking the political boat, slowly but surely, he's become more attractive as Harper is self-destructing.

What more does Ignatieff need to do? Show up, two to three times a week on TV and talk about what he's doing in parliament. Send out press releases. Go to Vancouver in two weeks. And, for the love of the good Lord, produce policy, policy, and more policy! Bottom line: he needs more headlines like the one he got yesterday.

Consistency is key. The slow burn will pay off. A week is a long time in politics and results like these week after week, must seem like an eternity for Conservatives.

Keep it up.