And the NDP Continue to be the Conservative Puppet Party

I've blogged about this before. But, today, the blind partisan blogger Steve "I'm not fed by the PMO" Janke, proves exactly what I'm saying. Today, Steve isn't bragging about his leader Stephen Harper's performance in the debates. Nope. Today, Steve's touting Jack Layton. BTW Steve, who posted that Layton clip on You Tube?

The purpose of this? To soften up more Liberal votes to go to the NDP. One problem. Most that read Steve's blog are Conservatives and not Liberals. Then again, CBC will probably pick up his story again and then everyone will be reading his blog.

This, of course, isn't the first time the Conservatives have run the NDP campaign. Here's a Mea Culpa from an NDP campaign manager on the last two elections:

For quick reference, Bart Maves was the sitting MPP and Rob Nicholson is the current Justice Minister of Canada

It may come as a surprise to some Liberals, but some New Democrats will admit it too.

Let me give you a good example of how Tory-NDP co-operation helped sink the Liberals in Niagara Falls.

In the 2003 provincial election, when it looked like the local Conservative campaign was going down with the ship, Bart Maves’ people sent the NDP campaign a list of voters who were identified as not supporting the Conservatives. The idea was that the NDP, with very few resources or volunteers, could more easily identify their supporters that way and hopefully, swing a few Liberal votes away from Kim Craitor’s campaign. The last minute Tory strategy failed and the Liberals won the riding.

I wasn’t involved in the 2003 campaign. However, less than a year later, while co-managing the Federal NDP’s campaign in Niagara Falls, we were able to rely on those 2003 Tory lists to build and, more importantly, broaden our base of support. In fact, we relied exclusively on those lists in that campaign and the NDP vote shot up to over 20% on election day and we quadrupled our vote total from the previous election. The Liberals lost a seat they had held since 1993 by fewer than 2000 votes to the Tories.

In 2006, I once again managed the NDP campaign in Niagara Falls. This time we had our own lists left over from 2004 and had more resources than ever before. Our advertising focused almost exclusively on attacking the Liberals despite the fact that it was now a Tory riding. We took this approach because we understood that the Liberals were in decline and our best opportunity for building our vote total came from disgruntled Liberals, not committed Conservatives. We attacked the Tories when it was convenient, but the Liberal record was our major focus.

Our efforts paid off. In fact, on election day we took over 12,000 votes, a record for the federal NDP in Niagara Falls. In debates, in the newspaper coverage, and in our election ads, we took direct aim at the Liberals, sometimes with the help of Rob Nicholson’s campaign. When Paul Martin was visiting the riding towards the end of the campaign to make an announcement about the development of a “heroes fund”, Tory MP Rob Nicholson personally contacted our campaign reminding us that this was originally an NDP proposal turned down by the Liberals. He left his personal cell phone number, said he was happy to help and encouraged us to contact him in case we couldn’t get research help from our own central campaign. Let's just say the Tory war room is faster. With Nicholson’s assistance, we were able to develop a targeted leaflet which exposed the Liberal flip flop and embarrassed the Liberal campaign. Nicholson also personally visited the NDP office and we were in contact with his office over advertising issues, successfully lobbying the Tories to pull a newspaper ad which the NDP candidate thought might hurt our campaign.

Is it any coincidence then that the NDP followed the Conservatives around the country for the first two or three weekd of the campaign? I'm just saying.

WTF! Steve Paikin for Prime Minister!

What in God's name is Steve Paikin doing interjecting his question, clarifications and opinions in this debate? This isn't an interview Steve. It's a debate! Stay out of it. The sixth candidate.

Religious Blog Wars Continue on CBC Site

Somehow, Andrew Prescott and I got dragged into the MSM over our ongoing dispute over what came first - the chicken or the egg - or, in our case religion's place in politics. Separation of Church and State and all that sort of stuff. Naturally, Andrew gives me too much credit for an article I posted that was written in the Vancouver Sun. Nonetheless, CBC has decided to rank our little war in the #3 spot this week. I'm okay with that.

The third most popular post this past week sees Blogging Tory "Christian Conservative" engage in an ongoing debate over the role of religion in the campaign with well known Liberal blogger James Curran. Curran ignited the online debate after a post on his site claimed: "The Alliance Church, to which Harper has belonged for decades, believes Jesus Christ will return to Earth in an apocalypse, won't ordain women, strongly opposes abortion and divorce, condemns homosexuality as the most base of sins and believes those who aren't born-again are "lost."

Au Contraire Ms. Hebert!

Here's Chantal Hebert's headline:

Opposition offers little on economy

I'm not sure what debate Ms. Hebert was watching. Stephane Dion clearly laid out a plan. He spoke of income tax and corporate tax deductions. He told Canadians all about the importance of a "shift". He told Canadians that Harper was the problem -with his George Bush approach to economics. More importantly, he let Candadians know that he doesn't trust the Conservative numbers and plans to consult all the economic experts in the country within 30 days of his election, so that Canada can be proactive about the real world economic outlook instead of Harper's Bush echo of "the fundamentals of our economy are strong".

The fundamentals of our economy are NOT STRONG Ms. Hebert. Dion offered lots on the economy last night. Somehow that was lost on you...then again, you're much more fluent in French than I, so maybe it was lost on me.

Rob Clarke Avoids David Orchard.....AGAIN

Following a nationwide trend, the Conservative candidate in DMCR has refused to attend a number of debates. Truth be known, he's not the only Conservative candidate in this country avoiding the press. So says The Star.

September 29, 2008

Conservative incumbent Rob Clarke a no-show in Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River

Voters in Saskatchewan's most northern riding won't have a chance to take a closer look at and listen to their Conservative candidate, Rob Clarke, who is systematically avoiding all opportunities to be scrutinized by the voters.

He was a no-show at a meeting organized by the Meadow Lake Chamber of Commerce on September 25th, merely sending his organizer to leaflet the audience, and he has not responded to an invitation from the La Ronge Chamber of Commerce either for an October 1st event. (This is the style of campaigning that Mr. Clarke adopted earlier when he pulled out of a radio debate in the March by-election as well.)

In an interview with Saskatoon Star Phoenix, September 20th, Mr. Clarke explained that "he has several reasons for taking a pass on the forum planned for Meadow Lake Sept. 25: His schedule is full; he doesn't want to get into a debate before the leaders' debate Oct. 2 for fear of contradicting leader Stephen Harper; and he's not a big fan of forums in any case." He also added that, "usually with a debate, you only get about 20 people to show up."

There were multiples of 20 constituents attending the Meadow Lake debate, and many had come to raise important questions with their former MP and potential future MP among the five who are running. David Orchard, Liberal candidate for the riding, commented on his opponent's non-presence: "I think it's not right when an elected representative... refuses to stand in front of the people who pay his salary, and defend his ideas. I think Mr. Clarke is doing a disservice to the people of Meadow Lake and his riding by failing to show up."

Is Stephen Harper Plagiarizing George Bush's Republicans Too???

How many times has Stephen Harper used the line "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" during this campaign. About a million? So it seems.

Here's George Bush's use of the line:

August 10, 2007

"The American economy is the envy of the world, and we need to keep it that way," Bush said. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong. ... Job creation is strong. Real after-tax wages are on the rise. Inflation is low."

How about Sept. 20, 2007?

President Bush: Fundamentals Of Our Nation's Economy Are Strong." "I say that the fundamentals of our nation's economy are strong. Inflation is down. Job markets are steady and strong. After all, the national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent. Corporate profits appear to be strong. Exports are up. There is no question that there is some unsettling times in the housing market, and credits associated with the housing market.

Then there is the January 28, 2008 McCain Version

Sen. John McCain disputed the suggestion. “I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession,” he said, “I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong and I believe they will remain strong. This is a rough patch, but I think America’s greatness lies ahead of us.”

And McCain on September 15, 2008

"Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times,''

Of course our friends over at A Creative Revolution were waaaaay ahead on the plagiarism thing. Perhaps more people will take it a little more seriously now and see what a puppet government we have here in Canada.

Prepare to be Embarrassed Again Mr. Harper and Mr. Nicholson

Well, the other day I remarked how surprised I was that nobody has launched a lawsuit against this illegal election. I did post a nice website dedicated to the cause though.

Naturally I blogged about the entire Harpocrisy of the election call and the Fixed Election Date Law, which Harper and Nicholson broke.

Here's a reposting from my September 13th blog. Just in case you missed it. So there. Take that.

Saturday September 13, 2008

If there was no reason, you are right. I indicated that if for no reason the Prime Minister went after three years and nine months and asked the Governor General to dissolve in the face of legislation, that would be a very difficult constitutional question facing the Governor General. Depending on how the Prime Minister survived that hurdle, it would seem to be an issue for the public of Canada, because it would fly in the face of the legislation before you today. - Rob Nicholson December 6, 2006.

What changed since then Rob?????

On December 6, 2006, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson gave evidence at Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. He was adamant about the Senate doing the right thing and passing Bill C-16,an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The purpose of this bill is quite straightforward. It amends the Canada Elections Act to bring in fixed election dates at the federal level in Canada. It provides that, subject to an earlier dissolution of Parliament, a general election must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after the bill comes into force to be held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

I provide to you the link to the entire document: click here.

Let us review some of Mr. Nicholson's testimony shall we:

I am pleased to be here as you begin your discussions on Bill C-16, which provides for fixed dates for general elections.

Fixed dates for general elections was an electoral commitment of the government. Moreover, I am pleased to note that after being thoroughly debated in the House of Commons and thoroughly scrutinized by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Bill C-16 was passed without amendment and with all-party support.

I will begin with a description of the current process for calling general elections and discuss some of the difficulties that we see associated with it. I will then present some specifics of the bill and some of the reasons I believe it will be beneficial. I will also talk about why the government chose to draft the bill in the way it did, and why the route we took was both necessary and effective. Finally, I will be glad to answer any questions.

As you know, today it is the prerogative of a prime minister whose government has not lost the confidence of the House of Commons to select what he or she regards as a propitious time for on election to renew the government's mandate. The Prime Minister requests the dissolution of the House of Commons from the Governor General. If the Governor General agrees, he or she proclaims the date of the election. This is a situation in which the Prime Minister is able to choose the date of the general election, not necessarily based on what is in the best interests of the country, but based on what is in the best interests of his or her party. Bill C-16 will address this problem and will, I think, produce a number of other benefits.

Really Rob? Please continue. You've caught our interest now.

The government's bill provides that the date for the next general election will be Monday, October 19, 2009. Of course, that will be the date only if the government is able to retain the confidence of the House until then. The bill does not affect the powers of the Governor General to call an election sooner if a government loses the confidence of the House.

For example, if the government were to be defeated tomorrow, a general election would be held according to the normal practice. However, the subsequent election would be scheduled for the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the next election. That is the normal model that would be established by this bill. General elections will occur on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election.

We chose the third Monday of October because it is a date that is likely to maximize voter turnout and will be least likely to conflict with cultural or religious holidays or elections in other jurisdictions. That raises an additional feature of the bill to which I want to draw your attention: it provides for an alternate election date in the event of a conflict with a date of religious or cultural significance or an election in another jurisdiction.

Maximize vote? Cultural or religious holidays? You mean like having an election the day after Thanksgiving Rob?

As to the benefits of this bill, fixed-date elections will provide numerous benefits to our political system. With fixed- date elections, the timing of general elections will be known to all, which will provide for greater fairness. Instead of the governing party having the advantage of determining when the next election will take place and being the single party that may know for up to several months when it will occur, all parties will be on an equal footing.

Another key advantage of fixed dates for general elections is that this measure will provide transparency as to when the general elections will be held, rather than decisions about election dates being made behind closed doors. General election dates will be public knowledge.

Fixed dates for elections will also allow for improved governance. For example, fixed dates for general elections will allow for better parliamentary planning. Members of parliamentary committees will be able to set out their agendas well in advance, which will make the work of committees and Parliament as a whole more efficient.

AHA. I see. Pardon us if we are beginning to laugh at the blatant hypocrisy. You're only 2 minutes into your evidence and I am ready to vomit Rob.

The Chairman: Thank you for that overview.

I have a very simple question. In Canada we celebrate Thanksgiving in the month of October; can you tell us what the fixed date is for the Thanksgiving Day break and holiday and whether this bill will conflict with the celebration?

Mr. Nicholson: I do not think so. One of the advantages of the date that we have chosen is that Thanksgiving, as you know, is the second Monday in October, whereas our election date is the third Monday. Inasmuch as there will be advance polls available in the previous week, it seems to me that, for those individuals who for any reason could not be there on the third Monday of October, the opportunity would be there for them to vote at the advance polls. Also, because Thanksgiving is a time when people generally get together, that again will enhance voter turnout. For those reasons I think the third Monday is a good date.

Ah. The answer to my question above.

Senator Milne: Why, then, when the Lortie commission in 1992 was looking at all this, did they comment that this type of system in Bill C-16 would not work because the government could always orchestrate its own defeat under such a system. They felt that the proposal for fixed terms presented several major problems. How does this bill address that concern?

Mr. Nicholson: I am not quite sure. Ultimately, if a government were orchestrating its own defeat it would have to be a decision of the House. Again, it would be a situation in which the government, for whatever reason, had lost the confidence of the House. There would have to be non-confidence votes taken by the opposition parties. I cannot see that.

Senator Milne: Yes, but you and I know it can be orchestrated.

Mr. Nicholson: I would expect that any government, in presenting legislation that it hoped would be passed by the House of Commons, would do so believing it to be in the best interests of the country; and that should certainly be its guiding principle. If it was the decision of the opposition parties to defeat the government, the confidence convention as preserved by this bill would apply and, again, it would be within the discretion of the Governor General.

Guiding Principles? What are those?

The Chairman: Senator Joyal, you have put that question to the minister and you have put it to the lawyer. They have both responded to it. I gather that you are not satisfied with the responses that either of them have given you to the suggestion that this bill, in putting in a limit of four years, is not allowing the full five years now permitted in the Constitution. You are not accepting that.

Senator Joyal: No, I am not accepting that. I think that the very existence of the wording of section 50 provides for an additional possible 12 months that will not be possible with the amendments contained in Bill C-16. That is my point. It limits the possible life of a Parliament of an additional possible 12 months. That is essentially the impact of this bill.

We can agree to disagree on your interpretation of section 50, and I submit to you that, if the government wants to change that, it could go through section 44 of the Constitution in relation to this very section of the Constitution, because it pertains to the House of Commons only and does not affect the institutions of Parliament per se, or the essential characteristics of Parliament.

That being said, I would like to continue on the other issue, the prerogative of the executive. As the minister said properly, the net effect of this bill is to remove the prerogative of the Prime Minister to go and seek dissolution of Parliament at any time before four years, and not after four years because now he will be prevented from doing this with Bill C-16. It is essentially to fetter the prerogative of the Prime Minister, after three and a half years or three years and nine months, to go to the Governor General and seek dissolution. The Governor General would be put in a very difficult position if the Governor General received a visit from the Prime Minister with a request to dissolve Parliament after three years and nine months, according to this bill.

In other words, for the Prime Minister to be able to go to the Governor General and request dissolution, the Prime Minister would have to have a vote of non-confidence formally registered in Parliament, if I understand the way the prerogative will be acted upon. Am I right or wrong?
Mr. Nicholson: I did not want to leave the impression that only a four-year period of time could take place. If, in fact, Parliament is dissolved by reason of a minority government, that will leave four years and six or eight months, but less than five years. You say the only way would be by a motion of non-confidence. I think I indicated that, for instance, if the government lost the confidence of the House of Commons by reason of the defeat of the budget implementation bill, that is not a resolution of the House of Commons. Nonetheless, it affects the confidence convention, and the Prime Minister would be within his or her right of attending upon the Governor General and asking for dissolution of Parliament on that basis.

Senator Joyal: With respect to any other issue, if the government —

Mr. Nicholson: If there was no reason, you are right. I indicated that if for no reason the Prime Minister went after three years and nine months and asked the Governor General to dissolve in the face of legislation, that would be a very difficult constitutional question facing the Governor General. Depending on how the Prime Minister survived that hurdle, it would seem to be an issue for the public of Canada, because it would fly in the face of the legislation before you today.

Senator Joyal: In other words, if you claim that the prerogative of the Governor General would not be impaired by this bill, in that context, the Governor General could send back the Prime Minister asking him to return with a clear vote of non-confidence from the House of Commons?
Mr. Nicholson: Again, I will not presuppose the Governor General's actions, but I imagine that the Governor General, any Governor General, would want to be satisfied that the Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the House. Whether that was by means of a resolution or by the defeat of an important piece of legislation, as in the example I provided, the Governor General would be within his or her right to ask those questions.

Wake up Canada! You're being snowed!

Harper Front Page Everywhere! How Embarrassing is That!

So, nobody's interested in the story. Nice try Tory war room. You're front page everywhere!

As Sylvester the Cat's son would say: For Shame!

Who's the Liar Now, Danny Williams?

He came out with a fury. Then peetered away to nothingness. You are officially the small man now Mr. Williams. Full of hot air and nothing more. You, sir, lied to Canadians when you vowed to take your show on the road. Mr. Harper was right. He doesn't need your help or blessing. And, don't you worry sir, if Mr. Harper is re-elected, his memory is long, and your province will pay dearly for this.

As an aside, to date, Mr. Williams has refused to commit to any speaking appearances in Ontario as well.

Conservatives Claim Nobody Cares About a 5 Year Old Speech

In his 2006 Big Blue Book of Bull Stephen Harper Said this: "A new Conservative Government will strengthen national unity and advance our interests on the world stage."

I'm not sure if this is what he had in mind.

It's international news and this Prime Minister has embarrassed Canada once again. He is the laughing stock of all world leaders at this moment. Compare that to a guy like Stephane Dion, who is critically acclaimed around the world by Environmentalists and world leaders alike.
The AFP

The Taiwan News

New Zealand

ABC Australia

The Netherlands

You get the idea.