Tutte Politiche (aka All Things Political)

Tories consider ending public funding to political parties?

2008-11-26T21:21:00.003-05:00

This story suggests that Flaherty is considering ending the public subsidies parties receive each year from the taxpayers. I wonder how the opposition parties are going to deal with this. Perhaps a game of political chicken?

Such a move would have considerable impacts on Canadian politics for the next few years.

1. It means the end of the BQ. The Bloc is highly dependent on public funding to run its operation. One could even argue that without those funds, they may not have been able to survive the last election. You see, fundraising is very much contingent on a party's popularity. For the last two years, the Bloc's popularity has down - that is until Harper started talking arts cuts. With such poor polling numbers, the party needed the funding from taxpayers. Cut the subsidies. Cut the Bloc. Win for the NDP and Tories in Quebec.

2. The ditch the Liberals are currently in with fundraising will become a canyon. The only thing keeping the Liberals solvent right now is the public funding. Take that away and we won't be seeing an election for another four years. Why? The party won't be able to afford it.

3. The NDP won't spend the max again. During the last election, for the first time in its history, the NDP spent the maximum allowable amount for its national campaign. It was a risk surely, but one based on the premise that the party would receive subsidies from taxpayers for the next two or three years. Taking away taxpayers' money and keeping union contributions illegal is a potent cocktail for the New Democrats.

What does this mean?

Potentially, the Conservatives will be the only party able to afford to go all out during the next election. Add to that the possibility that once they win their majority, they will eliminate spending limits during the election period.

Unlimited Conservative spending may be coming.

A Progressive Economists' View of the Global Economic Crisis

2008-11-26T21:08:00.003-05:00

A very smart friend of mine has some interesting things to say about the causes and solutions to the economic crisis. The article originally appeared here. Progressives should take note...

Causes and solutions to the global financial crisis

Suggestions about where to find the light at the end of the tunnel.

Dateline: Tuesday, November 25, 2008

by Henri M Sader

The current global financial meltdown provides an opportunity to challenge and begin to change the status quo of the past three decades. The magnitude of this crisis has exposed a global economic system that has preyed on the weak while shifting wealth thus widening the gap between rich and poor. This is a time for bold leadership and resolve — anything less could precipitate a global economic meltdown and resulting human suffering on a scale unprecedented in recent memory. As some of the Chinese say, crisis can be defined as "opportunity riding the dangerous wind."

For years, many good economists of the Keynesian and Galbraithian school have warned that the path chosen by the financial and policy establishment was unsustainable and would cause massive damage to society and the public good. These voices have been marginalised by the same ideology that allowed for deregulation and the explosive growth of derivatives within the financial sector worldwide.

The trigger of the crisis was the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States. The collapse happened because of over-speculation on worthless mortgages massively transformed by the financial system into wholesale products and ranked by some of the best rating agencies as 24K investments. These products were then disseminated across the world, leveraged and fed by an underestimated frenzy of technically-orchestrated greed, infecting international markets. When mortgagees defaulted, the collapse of the scheme detonated the global financial crisis.

There are, however, financial and structural roots within the current crisis that reach back to policies over twenty years old. The general deregulation of the economy pursued by the G8, starting in the 1980s and accelerated in the 1990s, set the stage for disaster.

Furthermore, a decade of low interest rates, while helpful to consumers and workers, reinforced the lax conditions under which cheap credit was provided to support the expansion of securitization and derivatives markets.

The deep, structural factors behind the financial crisis are mortgage loans granted on commissions — with shady credit-worthiness rules — and then an off-balance sheet securitization and the expansion of the derivatives market.

The role of financial deregulation

In Canada, the New Democratic Party (NDP) has long been concerned with financial deregulation and other policies that created the structural problems within the financial system. The NDP warned in 1998 that "Canadians should be particularly concerned about the explosive growth in derivative products and off-balance sheet liabilities." New Democrats warned that accelerating deregulation would only serve to put the financial system at risk by allowing banks and other financial institutions to engage in and leverage financial activities that carry a credit risk that is not based on real economic activity.

As predicted, the gap between growth in the real economy and the financial sector has increased dramatically since the 1980s and 1990s. Canadian Economist Jim Stanford was one of the first to warn about this problem in his book Paper Boom, published in 1999. Pillars that once separated insurance, investment and commerce, built to prevent the spread of risk from one category of financial institution to another in another 1929-style crash, were collapsed during the great wave of deregulation of the 1990s. The deregulation wave also encouraged speculation over well measured and productive investment, as Stanford pointed out.

It was only a matter of time before human nature followed its course. Greed, amplified by the system, overpowered unregulated markets. Root causes of the problem lie in the unsustainable nature of credit to the growing masses of working poor and an increasingly impoverished middle class.

Easy credit sustains wage stagnation

Real wage stagnation since the 1980s has made it impossible for US consumers to keep up with the cost of living and sustain aggregate demand. Household debt there has ballooned, exceeding 100 percent of disposable income.

The crisis was spurred by a distorted capitalist system. It extracts the highest profit from the poorest, while giving them access to credit to continue to buy the goods that growth in their real income alone cannot support.

The more "egalitarian" distribution of credit is not sustainable, unless supported by a truly egalitarian distribution of real income. Advancing credit to low-income households to help them acquire property is commendable, but unless their incomes rise as well, a day of reckoning is inevitable. Speculation sustained by loose credit bought some time for the economy, but ultimately the financial system can no longer defy with impunity the laws of economic gravity.

G20 governments are now feverishly consulting to find solutions to the crisis. Their recent summit was followed by a flurry of calls to rein in the global financial system, making many Bush-era ideologues into near closest Keynesians. It will take time to see if these world leaders are able to move past rhetoric to deliver urgently needed reform.

Accountability is key to an effective bailout

The fundamental issue is not that the financial markets must be kept functioning to allow their masters to uphold their obligations to the citizenry. A complete collapse of the financial markets would destroy the jobs, property and savings of tens of millions of working families. The real question behind any bailout, through the IMF or central banks, is ultimately accountability. The massive injection of stabilizing funding cannot be a sort of unconditional release of money through the banks or government supplementary borrowing which amount to a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. It is very revealing that the US government did comparatively very little to rescue households who were trapped and needed higher incomes to maintain their hold on their property.

The conditions for the reimbursement of the money and accountability mechanisms for institutions receiving public funds are therefore as important as the actual money itself. Greedy institutions being bailed out by the public's money should not become a further burden to the citizenry and working families. Regulators and legislatures must seize the opportunity and obligation presented by the crisis for greater accountability and restorative economic justice.

Additionally, it is absolutely necessary to re-regulate the financial sector. The very idea of credit has been dangerously perverted by an explosion in derivative products that no longer serve the legitimate purpose of reducing productive business risk. The sale of Ponzi scheme derivatives allowed a few people to become very rich while contributing nothing but a potential disaster to society. These schemes must be eradicated and criminal charges laid.

Tight-fisted regulation by authorities has proved its worth during this crisis. In Lebanon for instance, despite a severe political situation and a heavy amount of public debt, the banking system has rested completely insulated from the worldwide meltdown thanks to the foresight of the governor of the Lebanese Central Bank. He prohibited Lebanese banks from engaging in the derivatives business. Compare this to Iceland, a vanguard of the orthodox approach, where the banking system has fallen apart precisely because of deregulation and the systematic exposure to derivatives.

In this context, the NDP's 1998 recommendation is just as relevant today as it was ten years ago: simply prohibit or highly regulate the financing of derivative products through bank credits. Once accomplished, it will be necessary to explore the idea of creating a mandatory reserve requirement for certain types of lending which do not target the creation of wealth in order to help prevent or mitigate the risks of speculation.

Institute the Tobin tax, with the IMF as back office

Also, the time is right to explore once again the concept of a Tobin Tax, which would target international financial speculation. A modest fee levied on international transactions is not only a method to discourage currency speculation and fund development. It would also create an insurance fund for sheltering more financially vulnerable countries from currency meltdowns. Perhaps the principle of a Tobin tax could also be in line with the necessity of implementing a capital gains taxation policy that would target each transaction rather than aggregate income, while protecting the investments of retirees and working families.

A Tobin Tax should dovetail an increased and redefined role for the IMF: from a draconian and loathed institution to a trusted coordinator, partner and consultant to the international community in crisis management and finance. Perhaps it is also the time to revisit a question dear to John Maynard Keynes: could a redefinition of the job description of the IMF be constructed in conjunction with the creation of an international bank with a mandate to provide compensatory credit to countries experiencing destabilizing trade gaps?

Finally, the issue of income inequality must be dealt with by promoting a new international strategy for sustainable investment. A key component is an income policy targeted at reducing income inequality, setting fair wage standards for all, to increase domestic demand in the larger economies of the world. There must be a concerted international effort to end the Predator State — the legacy of the Bush administration — and promote economic policies that prioritize the sustainable growth of domestic demands, the counterpart of sustainable investment policies.

This is even more a fundamental issue now that there seems to be an appetite in Obama's Washington for incorporating labour and environmental safeguards in the NAFTA, for example. The political dimension of this crisis has been generally ignored by most of the parties involved, a legacy of the government's hands-off approach up to this point. Since the market has dramatically proved its inability to govern itself, there is no other justification required for an immediate, aggressive and fair government intervention in the economy, to bring the kind of sweeping and substantive change that can only be achieved through political and legislative means.

In reality, China seems to be leading the way towards this type of Keynesian resurrection with the announcement of a $586 billion public investment package on infrastructure including housing, healthcare and disaster relief. The package comes in response to a faltering demand for Chinese exports from the West, a direct consequence of the meltdown taking its toll on global demand. The Chinese government has highlighted the fact that a solid domestic economy will be their contribution to the stability of the international economy. This is good news for the western manufacturing industry.

To broaden the participation of the international community towards a global agenda of growth renewal, the millennium goals for the cancellation of debt of the poorest countries — shamefully behind schedule — must be accelerated and broadened. This is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of a new strategy for financing sustainable development, which would be based on the Make Poverty History movement's platform. This includes the expansion of Fair Trade with an egalitarian solution to accessing international credit.

Canada's government is winging it

In the end, much will still depend on the new Obama administration's will and ability to break with the ideological establishment of the American financial system and push through urgent and appropriate reform. In Canada, it is clear that the Harper minority government is fitfully attempting to adapt its policy on the fly, grasping at a political solution to an economic crisis. The middle road proposals enunciated by Harper at the G20 summit, may have afforded the Conservatives an opportunistic venue to save their ideological face.

The ease and eagerness of governments to come up with a trillion dollars very quickly when their stability is threatened, in contrast to their reluctance to pour aid and sustainable credit into impoverished and devastated nations, is shockingly inhumane, and irresponsible. While blame and solutions are being passed around like cheap currency — in the worst sense of the word, given the crisis that is before us — government must show leadership by acknowledging not only the initial causes of the current crisis, but the longstanding failures of the neo-liberal economic model that lead to the suffering we currently experience.
Henri M Sader was born in Lebanon. He holds a PhD in Economics and is a member of The Progressive Economics Forum.

Alberta election- Students getting involved

2008-02-18T17:16:00.001-05:00

I just got this link sent to me.

Thought I'd share it with everyone.

Harper on TSN - Illegal Campaign Contribution?

2007-12-27T14:57:00.000-05:00

Now I am studying election financing so I'm looking for any legal opinions out there.

Have you noticed Harper's little "Go Canada" ad provided by TSN? Have past Prime Ministers done this?

Just curious, does this break the Election Finances Act? Was TSN giving the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper free advertising, thus an in-kind contribution from a corporation? This is now illegal in Canada thanks to Chretien and Harper's reform bills.

Weigh in if you have any thoughts.

Cabinet Building: If I were McGuinty

2007-10-28T23:55:00.000-04:00

Seeing as though McGuinty will announce his new cabinet this week, I thought I'd take a stab at building it myself. This isn't a prediction, but more of how I'd form it based on what I know about the Liberal caucus.

I think McGuinty has a wealth of talent in his caucus and some current cabinet ministers probably deserve to be left out of the new Executive. Furthermore, there are plenty of experienced women MPPs to increase the number within cabinet.

Premier - Dalton McGuinty
Finance - Kathleen Wynne (She defeated John Tory and she's done a good job in Education. Will send a message to appoint a woman to this position. Plus she's from Toronto)
Education - Jim Watson (The current Health Promotion minister is a natural coalition builder and deserves a promotion within Cabinet)
Health - Chris Bentley (Implemented McGuinty's aggressive post-secondary policies as Advanced Ed Minister, deserves a promotion)
Environment - George Smitherman (He's done a good job in health care and needs something new, but still important. The Environment will be a major portfolio over the next four years, and McGuinty needs a fighter in there.
Transportation - Donna Cansfield (She should stay in this position)
Labour - David Caplan
Economic Development and Trade - Jim Bradley
Training, Colleges and Universities - Laura Albanese (from Anchor of Italian News on OMNI)
Municipal Affairs and Housing - Dwight Duncan (Windsor MPP and solid cabinet performer)
Attorney General - Michael Bryant (Has been a consistently solid Attorney General. He deserves another term in the role)
Community Safety and Solicitor General - Wayne Arthurs (2nd term MPP and former mayor of Pickering, sorry Monte Kwinter, but we need some fresh blood in cabinet.)
Culture - Laurel Broten (The story about her garage entitles her to demotion within cabinet)
Tourism - Sandra Pupatello (She'd do a good job selling Ontario to the rest of the world)
Intergovernmental Affairs - Madeleine Meilleur
Democratic Renewal - Jim Bradley
Women's Issues - Sandra Pupatello
House Leader - Jim Bradley (An experienced legislator)
Health Promotion - Dr. Helena Jaczek (former Public Health Officer for York Region)
Public Infrastructure - John Gerresten (Former Municipal Affairs and Housing)
Children and Youth Services - Sophia Aggelontis (New MPP from Hamilton)
Revenue - Dave Levac
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs - John Wilkinson (2nd term MPP from rural area)
Energy - David Ramsay (Long time member of the leg, and almost lost his seat)
Natural Resources- Steve Peters
Community and Social Services - Aileen Carroll (New Barrie MPP and former federal CIDA Minister)
Government Services - Gerry Phillips
Citizenship and Immigration - Madeleine Meilleur
Aboriginal Affairs - Deb Matthews (second term London MPP)
Northern Development and Mines - Rick Bartolucci (He's done a good job and apparently enjoys this portfolio.)

So there you have it. I didn't create any new positions, but there could always be some created by McGuinty.

Total Cabinet size: 26
Men - 16
Women - 10
GTA - 10
Ottawa - 3
North - 2
Rural - 5
New faces - 7

CTV Poll Analysis is Warped

2007-02-20T01:31:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching the CTV nightly news and was dismayed at how they covered the latest Strategic Counsel poll.

First, the Greens at 12%? That seems a bit high considering all the other polls, including SES, has them at a more modest number. This should really be the focus of the reporting. But alas, pollsters work in their own world, ignoring any other polls commissioned in between their own.

As for the "nosedive" comment, I think Gregg's analysis needs some context. The previous poll was conducted in December during the weekend of the Liberal leadership convention. Taking into account the margin of error (and Strategic Counsel has had its share of error if we remember their 2006 election polling), the Liberals and Conservatives are basically tied. In all reality, I think this poll is bogus. Though what is far worse is the manner in which the CTV reported the poll.

Can anyone say drive-by smear? In my opinion this was probably one of the worst attempts at political reporting in a long time. Maybe it was a make-up by the CTV for releasing the December poll in the first place.

Does it get attention? Yes.
It is headline worthy? Of course.
Was it good journalism? Hell no.

I don't think the Liberals should worry about this poll... and here's why.

I did a quick analysis of the 2006 Election Study released recently. The results of the survey showed that on Election Day in 2006, the Liberals lost a substantial block of voters who went to the Conservatives and the NDP. Also of note, the Green Party picked up more voters from the Liberals than they kept from the 2004 election.

Here is a chart I put together that outlines the entire 2,700 respondent panel. Along the columns are respondents behaviour during 2006. Along the rows are respondents reported behaviour in 2004.

		2006
		Lib	CP	NDP	Other	Bloc	Green	DNV
2004	Lib	22.0%	8.5%	4.7%	0.1%	0.8%	1.3%	2.3%
	CP	0.8%	22.5%	1.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	1.1%
	NDP	1.0%	1.1%	9.1%	0.0%	0.3%	0.4%	0.5%
	Other	0.1%	1.4%	0.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.4%
	Bloc	0.3%	0.4%	0.6%	0.0%	7.5%	0.8%	0.1%
	Green	0.1%	0.2%	0.1%	0.0%	0.1%	1.2%	0.0%
	DNV	1.5%	2.4%	1.0%	0.1%	0.8%	0.3%	5.7%
	NE	0.0%	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

As you can see, the 2006 election attracted a lot of voters who did not vote in 2004. The Liberals and Conservatives were the main beneficiaries of these new voters. Also of note here, 2.3% of the electorate who voted Liberal in 2004 choose to stay home in 2006.

The NDP was able to pick up 4.7% of the electorate from the Liberals, and one can assume that many will come back to the Liberal fold during the next election to prevent the Conservatives from winning again. Why? Because the Conservatives have basically dismantled social programs, threw away Kyoto and put more Canadian troops into Afghanistan. A Liberal government is far better than a Conservative one in the eyes of rational progressive voters.

The CTV poll is bad: bad polling and bad reporting. Watch it here.

I am not worried - Canadians still don't know who Dion is yet. Once they are given the choice, the Liberals will be well positioned to retake government, albeit with a minority government.

John McCain - Campaign Finance Reform and Hypocracy

2007-02-18T21:50:00.000-05:00

John McCain is running for president. No one doubts it and no one doubts his strength and the establishment's support for him in the Republican Party. However, the difference in his campaign strategy and tactics between 2000 and now are light years apart.

Note this Washington Post article. In 2000, McCain was the champion of reform - pushing for tough new campaign finance legislation to limit the influence of big donors on campaigns. It was a good bill, but it had plenty of holes (mainly allowing donors to bundle contributions).

Back in the early 1990s, McCain and four other Senators were caught helping a political contributor (who happened to own a failing savings and loan company) with federal regulators. So to improve his image, McCain starts his crusade to remove soft money and reform the campaign finance system: clearly a rational decision on his part.

Flip back to 2007 - McCain is running for president. He needs big money to do it and cannot count on the support of small contributors because he's no longer the reformer, but the establishment candidate of the GOP. What does he do? He taps some of the GOP's biggest fundraisers - former George W. supporters to raise him huge sums of money.

The problem? - When McCain needed a face lift, he became the reformer. But now he needs big money. John McCain is a shame. At one point, particularly after the 2000 election when he pushed the campaign finance law through the Senate, I had some respect for the man as someone who would speak out against his party. Now it's clear - McCain is a hypocrite, and in my opinion, scarier than George W. Bush.

In 2007, let's get rid of Harper and Howard...

2007-02-11T11:28:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, in responses to Obama's announcement, Aussie PM John Howard was quoted as saying:

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard blasted Senator Obama's policy on the Iraq war and said al-Qaeda would "be praying as many times as possible for a victory for not only Obama but also for the Democrats".

Australia will throw Howard out as Canada sends Mr. Harper packing.

Update:
Obama responds to the Aussie War Monger

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home," [Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs] said. "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

Obama Announces (Again) that He's Running for President

2007-02-10T14:32:00.000-05:00

Today on the steps of the Illinois State Legislature, Barak Obama announced that he's running full steam ahead for the Democratic nomination.

Where his political career began as a State Senator, Obama referred to Lincoln and his vision for America. You can read his announcement speech here.

He's definitely an exciting candidate. Although, as I've said before...I'm waiting for Gore.

This also shows that the Democratic contest will be far more interesting than that of the Republicans who have a bunch of has beens and no-bodies running for the job. '08 looks like a Democratic year and this is great news for mankind :)

SES Research - Liberals and Conservatives Tied at 33%

2007-02-09T12:25:00.000-05:00

Canada's most accurate pollster, SES Research, has released their latest national poll:

Decided Voters

Conservatives: 33% (-1)
Liberals: 33% (+1)
NDP: 17% (+1)
Bloc: 10% (-3)
Greens: 7% (+2)

Undecided: 9% (-3)

This poll comfirms what we have thought - this thing is close and the Conservatives are not really interested in going to an election.

The Leger poll seems to be an outlier since it has the Conservatives with such a large lead. The only poll I trust is SES.

You can get SES' stat sheet here.

Bill Richardson for President 2008?

2007-02-03T14:30:00.000-05:00

While I am partial to Gore and will wait until the end for him to enter the race (btw I'm going to see him live in Calgary in April).

I thought you might be interested in this video

Richardson is very much like Clinton was in 1992 - turned around a weak state. But he has the foreign policy experience to match.

Watch the video - you will be impressed.

A Great Resource for American Politics Junkies

2007-01-29T18:29:00.000-05:00

I am getting back into writing more regularly.

But to start, I want to direct you all to a great resource for American Political News.

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire is the first website I visit every morning. It's a great aggregator of political news down south. It posts the most recent public opinion polls, news coming from the 2008 presidential campaign and all other news related to politics.

It is updated constantly throughout the day. As such, it has me addicted. It is very similar to Daily Canuck without the intentional partisan flavour.

I highly recommend it to all Liberal bloggers.

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

Al Gore for President...

2007-01-23T22:48:00.000-05:00

Today Al Gore's movie, An Inconvient Truth, recieved two Oscar nominations.

If he wins - in his acceptance speech he should announce that he is running for President.

Maybe something like this:

"Working on this movie has been such a worthwhile excerise. But now it is time for me to take the issue of global warming to a new level. To do that, I cannot simply yell at the White House; I have to be in it."

It'd make for great TV.

Garth Turner, the 1st Green Party MP?

2006-10-18T22:58:00.000-04:00

Interesting news today about Garth Turner's ejection from the Conservative caucus.

My question - will Garth Turner be Canada's first Green Party MP?

I think maybe... we'll have to weight and see.

The Debate over Party Finance Reform - a look back...

2006-10-04T01:07:00.000-04:00

As I'm doing research on party finance reform, I came across the debate over Bill C-24 (Chretien's election finance reforms) from 2003. I couldn't help but notice Stephen Harper's comments on the Bill. It should be noted that the Canadian Alliance opposed the bill.

Here's what then Opposition Leader Stephen Harper said:

Obviously with this kind of history, our party is very interested in real measures that would avoid or lessen undue influence from the large donations of corporations, unions, associations or individuals. It is obviously something that we would be interested in.
However, by its very structure, Bill C-24, the campaign finance reform legislation proposed by the government, while it hints at some improvements, in the end it fails to be the type of positive reform legislation that we can support. It does not, and if we are realistic, it cannot end corruption or inappropriate influence in government. Our fear is that it will serve to weaken an already fragile democratic framework. (Hansard, Feb. 11, 2003)

He then goes on to say:

Let us be clear. We could support, in principle, the provisions of this bill to limit corporate and union contributions. What we are against is replacing corporate and union contributions with forced subsidies from taxpayers. Political parties should learn to depend mostly on contributions from their members.
Frankly, we find it outrageous that the Liberals are describing this bill as a democratic reform. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to give money without their consent. Furthermore, many of these so-called reforms to strengthen our democracy have the exact opposite effect.

From this my only question is: If public financing of political parties was not appropriate back then for Mr. Harper, why doesn't C-2, the Accountability Act, remove public financing from the Election Financing Act?

US Senate Majority Leader Aligns with Layton on Afghanistan

2006-10-02T20:41:00.000-04:00

Layton may not be as crazy as he sounds.

The Republicans in the US Senate are using the same arguments Layton used in trying to end the fighting in Afghanistan.

Maybe its worth another look...

Online Preferential Ballot

2006-09-26T02:18:00.000-04:00

What if a convention were held in cyberland and bloggers and their readers could vote in a prefential ballot - which current Liberal leadership candidate would come on top?

Let's find out...

Vote early and vote often!

Evening Political Wrap Up

2006-09-14T23:04:00.000-04:00

1. A new poll released by the CBC shows Ken Dryden in the lead among Canadians and Liberals at large. This is great news for Ken's campaign and only adds to this blogs argument that Ken is the best vehicle for victory for the Liberal Party. Oh, and this isn't the first poll that Ken Dryden has led. Back in February, Canada's most accurate pollster, SES Research, found Ken to be the top choice of all Canadians - check it out here.

2. The Ontario Liberals lost a seat tonight in Toronto (Parkdale-High Park). Despite all the attention paid to the riding and the nastiness of the campaign, this is a wake up call to the provincal Liberals - despite good times, improving public services and overall good government, the public still remembers what happened during the first year in office. Next November (election) won't be an easy fight. Election Results.

3. American Politics - The turnout campaign that Republican operatives used to help pull" Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) to victory in his tough primary fight was "a preview of the strategy that national party officials say they plan to replicate in the most competitive House and Senate races over the next 55 days, according to the Washington Post.

Globe and Mail Feature on Ken Dryden

2006-09-14T10:23:00.000-04:00

Jane Taber wrote the Globe's feature on Ken Dryden today.

You can get a hold of it here.

Some good quotes:

" Mr. Dryden has emerged as the candidate with the heart and the passion and the enthusiasm about Canada and its future."

“I think he's more prophet than politician,” said Scott Reid, former PMO director of communications, who is not supporting any of the 10 candidates but who worked closely with Mr. Dryden in the short-lived Martin government. “He says things that are insightful and leaves an impression with people. He writes with a poet's pen as well. He is definitely a politician of a different breed.”

"Whatever happens, however, Mr. Dryden says the most critical decision delegates will have to make at the leadership convention in December is to elect a leader who they believe can win the next election. He doesn't buy the view of some commentators that the next election has basically been conceded to the Tories."

IF WE WANT TO WIN....

Letter to Editor at the Toronto Star

2006-09-12T10:07:00.000-04:00

A great letter to the editor about the leadership race was published today in the Toronto Star.

Check it out here.

Will Harper choose Ideology over common sense?

2006-09-12T00:02:00.000-04:00

Today the GM reported that the Technology Partnership Grants had a net positive impact on the Canadian economy of $32 billion or 8.6 times the cost of the program.

I'd say that's a pretty successful program that should be kept in place.

Will Harper once again choose the wrong policy choice just because he promised it during an election?

This would be strike two- remember the GST?

You can get the article here.

Do we want to win the next election?

2006-09-11T01:34:00.000-04:00

As we Liberals come towards delgate selection, we have to ask one simple question:

DO WE WANT TO WIN?

If the answer is NO - if we, as an aggregate party, feel that it is not time for us to take control again of this country then we have plenty of options for leader:

1. Michael Ignatieff - A brillant man with a strong following from the powers that be. But honestly, will this guy sell? I honestly don't believe so. I have met him personally at a house party - heard him talk about some unity spine stretching across the country, blah blah blah. I'm pursuing a PhD, and honestly would like nothing more than to see an academic in the PM's chair again, but this guy isn't it. He hasn't been in the game long enough - you've gotta get bruised and battered before you can play the politics game.

2. Bob Rae - Once again, a brillant, experienced man who will bring the party back to its progressive roots. But again, when the most populous province remembers what it was like to be ruled by this man - we have to say for pratical purposes that this guy can't become leader. If we want to win, we need 60-70 seats in Ontario at the minimum - will a riding like Ottawa West-Nepean, or Whity-Ajax give this guy a chance? I don't think so. We have to be able to win ridings in the suburbs and rural areas where we lost in 2006.

3. Gerrard Kennedy - A fresh face, policy oriented and good looking, but unknown - if he's elected leader, the party won't have time to get him out there. An election looms in the spring. That gives this federal rookie only four to six months to prepare - if we want to win, Kennedy isn't the choice. If we want to win five years down the road - then he's our man.

4. Brison, Bennett, Fry, Hall-Findlay, and Volpe - These candidates shouldn't be in the race. While I like what Bennett, Hall-Findaly and Brison have to say - practically says they can't win. Fry and Volpe just need to quit - they bring nothing but wasted time to this race.

BUT - if we want to win, then I think the options come down to two of the leadership candidates:

KEN DRYDEN (obviously) and STEPHANE DION

1. Dion - Honestly, I like this guy. He's a political scientist who knows what he's talking about. His focus on a sustainable economy, national unity and Kyoto is exactly what I'm looking to hear. But he's missing two things - the ability to contrast with Harper and the ability to attract crowds.

I've said it over and over, that to win the next election, the Liberals need someone who can stand on the stage with Harper and offer a completely different product. Dion is smart, but his accent is quite strong and I think Canadians will just tune him out.

2. Dryden - And so, we are left with good ole Kenny. Why can we win with Ken? Three simple reasons.

a. He has high name recognition and a strong reputation - People know who Ken is and once they hear him speak and set out his vision, they will see an honest, sincere politician not out there trying to simply win 40% of the vote, but a man who honestly believes that government can do good in this country and that 100% of Canadians can get behind his idea of what Canada can be.

b. He can raise money - The Liberals are desperately falling behind in the money chase. Ken is the only guy who can go into rural Canada and draw large crowds. While they may come out because of his sporting past, they'll stay to hear about his ideas. The key is getting people to listen and Ken is the only candidate who has the gift in this race.

c. He has the right policies - Ken contrasts clearly with Harper's visionor lack there of. His description of a "pinched, small" Conservative ideology is strong and I think it will resonate with Canadians if he is given a stage onto which to shout it out. Imagine what we could do if the people running Iggy's or Rae's campaign were running Ken's. Imagine putting Kinsella's strategic mind behind the image and voice of Dryden.

If we want to win - if we want to stop Harper's closedminded idea of Canada - then we have to select a leader who can lead us there.

Ken Dryden is the one - listen, watch and read - learn about the candidates and imagine them during a campaign. Once you do that, you'll understand that winning this time isn't really an option, it's a necessity and Ken's the candidate to do it.

Toronto Star Profile of Dryden

2006-09-10T21:52:00.000-04:00

The Toronto Star profiled Ken Dryden today.

Overall, I thought the piece was positive - casting Dryden as the conscience of the Liberal Party. But more to the point, I think it touched on exactly what the Liberal Party should be looking for - a clear contrast to Harper.

As the NDP distinguishes itself (albeit in an unconventional and I believe stupid way), Dryden would be the perfect counter punch to Harper.

First, he'd keep the left flank of the Libs in place (something only Bob Rae and perhaps Kennedy could do). Second, he is the complete opposite of Harper (minus the charisma).

He believes in a big Canada; Harper a small, as Ken himself says, pinched on.

He believes government is in the business of doing good, for all people; Harper only focuses on the 40% needed to win.

He is loved by Canadians; Harper clearly isn't.

He is respected - when the Liberal brand is under seige, Ken is the only candidate able to rebuild the party around his leadership, set a bold agenda for the future and take the country back.

In my opinion, he's the only candidate who can win.

You can check out the profile here.

Let's Copy the Republicans...

2006-09-07T13:11:00.000-04:00

The Republicans have started a new website with a mock newspaper detailing what would happen if the Democrats take over Congress.

I think its a really insightful idea - mixing their messaging with humour.

We, meaning the Liberal blogsphere, should do something similar regarding what would happen if Harper wins a majority.

You can check it out the PDF here.

Dryden Outlines Vision

2006-09-05T16:52:00.000-04:00

As already identified, Ken Dryden released his full policy vision today in Ottawa.

The document is a fairly comprehensive outline of what kind of government Dryden would lead. This forward looking, progressive document strengthens my resolve to see Dryden elected leader.
You can get a copy of Dryden's platform here.

One of my favourate quotes from the document:

It would be a government excited at the possibilities of Canada, of what we are now – more than we know – and of what we can be. It would be challenging. We have been given a lot – our land, our space, our resources – we have been given a lot by our ancestors – peace, stability, materia wealth, a “live and let live” society with the richness of two founding languages and many cultures, with its understandings and institutions, and instinct for getting along. We have been given a past and a present that have set no limits on our future. We are a country still in the making, still in the becoming.

The Five Best Political Novels

2006-08-27T12:50:00.000-04:00

I got this from www.politicalwire.com

The Five Best Political Novels

If you have time for reading over the Labor Day weekend, the Wall Street Journal picks the five best political novels of all time:

1. The Prime Minister by Anthony Trollope (1876): "The tale of an unscrupulous man's campaign for Parliament and the prime minister's wife who supports him against her husband's wishes."

2. Shelley's Heart by Charles McCarry (1995): "America's best writer of espionage novels produced this gripping tale of political intrigue that is also an audacious romp through contemporary Washington mores. A scene at a Georgetown dinner party attended by a former president, a Supreme Court justice, a speaker of the House, a reporter and a lesbian ranks as one of the funniest scenes in contemporary American fiction."

3. Death of a Red Heroine by Qiu Xiaolong (2000): "Qiu's inspector-poet risks all when his investigation takes him too close to one of China's untouchable princelings, the son of a high-ranking official in Beijing."

4. Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler (1941): "Darkness at Noon recounts the fate of Rubashov, an old revolutionary who is charged with treason and thrown in prison, where he is brainwashed and tortured; he ultimately confesses to imaginary crimes against the state."

5. All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren (1946): "Robert Penn Warren was the nation's first poet laureate, and it's easy to understand why when lingering over the beautiful language in this lushly written novel. But it's also a rollicking good read. Based on the life of Huey 'Kingfish' Long of Louisiana, All the King's Men is the rags-to-riches story of Willie Stark, a small-town Southern politician who starts out as an idealistic young man of the people and ends up corrupted by the system he had sought to reform."

The Green Party: Post Convention Analysis

2006-08-27T09:28:00.000-04:00

While few bloggers have commented on the election of Elizabeth May as Green Party leader yesterday, I think that it deserves some commentary.

First, this is good news for the Green Party. Up until now, the Green Party has lacked three significant things holding it back from breaking through:

1. A visible leader - Jim Harris was no where. At no point during his leadership did Canadians recognize him or care about it. In the modern world of Canadian politics, party leadership is key and the Greens were seriously lacking in this category.

2. Organization - Throughout his leadership, there were stories about how unorganized the Green head office was under Jim Harris. Firings, resignations etc all coming as the Party took in a little under a $1 million dollars a year.

3. Relevance - While Harris was able to get a Green candidate in every riding in the country twice, he was unable to make the Green's relevant. The media didn't pay attention and the party's peak came during election campaigns (See Nik Nano's analysis from the Convention).

These three factors all contributed to the glass ceiling the party faced. I think that May can break through, in part, because she can fix all three problems.

She is a fighter. She is known around the country as a credible voice on the environment, while being relatively moderate on other important issues. She's from Atlantic Canada, the area of the country where Green support is weakest.

She has experience running large organizations(the Sierra Club of Canada) and knows how to get media attention - heck, she wrote a book about.

What all this means is that more than ever before, the Green Party CAN (and I stress can) become a relavent player in Canadian Politics. It has the financial base, it has a new dynamic leader who knows how to get attention. It has no political baggage and can become the outlet for protest and new engagement with Canadians.

Yesterday was Jack Layton's worst nightmare. While he's fighting for Liberal votes, a new force to his left may slowly start taking away votes - especially with Labour breaking ties with the NDP.

Liberals should pay attention to this. If the next election is fought on the environment - then you can bet Elizabeth May will be front and centre in the debate and that her voice will not be lost in the shuffle.

Liberals in Trouble: Fundraising in Saskatchewan 2006

2006-07-26T10:36:00.000-04:00

I've had a little time lately so I've been checking out the Elections Canada website.

I did a quick analysis of the fundraising performance of candidates in Saskatchewan during the 2006 election.

So here's what I found (and its pretty tell of what happened in Saskatchewan in the last election)

Fundraising totals:

Conservative (N=14 candidates)
Average number of contributions per candidate = 166
Average contribution = $210.60

NDP (N=14 candidates)
Average number of contributions per candidate = 76
Average contribution = $146.34

Liberal (N=12 candidates)
Average number of contributions per candidate = 58
Average contribution = $333.00

Conclusion:
What the results from Saskatchewan show us is that on the ground, in the ridings, Liberal candidates did not have a broad base of support and could not raise money from many people. This is understandable if you understand Saskatchewan politics, but it also underscores the importance for the party to build a fundraising base that focuses primarily on small donors. Contributors are probably more likely to vote and get involved.

During the leadership campaign, we should be asking ourselves who is best to build a national fundraising network? Who has the name recognition and appeal to build a network quickly and effectively? With the new $1000.00 limit, the Liberals will have to move quickly to change the way the party raises money.

Nova Scotia Election

2006-06-14T11:53:00.000-04:00

Well, as always, Nova Scotia offered up some very interesting election night results last night.

The PCs pulled off another minority government. It's the third minority government in four elections.

Overall, I would say that the NDP had the best overall campaign. It was tightly run with a clear, concise and focused message. The PC campaign was also strong, although the result was not as positive as they probably had hoped.

The big failure was the Liberals. Clearly, Francis Mackenzie has to go. He couldn't even win his own seat and the party dropped in popular support.

It had been mentioned earlier that there may be a polarization occuring in NS politics between the NDP and PC party - a clear urban-rural divide. I would tend to agree with that accessment. Although, an exception exists.

Look at the riding of Queens near the South Shore. A fairly rural riding. Here, the Liberals did not field a candidate and the NDP took the seat by less than 100 votes. In this case, the lack of a Liberal candidate clearly helped the NDP since Queens has been a Tory riding for many many years.

Therefore, left-of-centre parties can win in rural NS if there is only one option available. In the future, there may be an argument for a joining of the NDP and Liberals in strategy in some parts of NS - similar to what the Liberals and National Party do in Australia.

Either way - the NDP has proven it can win a large number of votes in the province and its hold on Metro seems unbreakable at this point.

TD Bank Executives Bundle Political Donations

2006-06-12T16:53:00.000-04:00

The G&M reports today that executives at TD Bank bundled personal political contributions and donated to both the Conservative and Liberal Party.

This method, which was used extensively by GW Bush during the 2004 election (the first after the Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform bill came into effect) to raise money.

It is a very good way to overcome the new rules, but unless the TD Bank released this info, no one would have known that this was done.

In the US, contributors are required to disclose their profession and the company or organization they work for. I think that the Chief Electoral Officer in Canada will have to consider such a move as well in the future.

Paul Wells on Dryden

2006-06-12T13:20:00.000-04:00

Paul Wells did a recap of the debate on Saturday. Here's his take on Dryden's performance...

Ken Dryden has been forced, by the sheer weight of his slab-like, builders-of-Stonehenge speaking style, to become pithy, because otherwise he just won't get anything said in 90 seconds. So he was very good on the limitations of Harper's ruthlessly pragmatic electoral strategies (if some group or segment of the population isn't needed for his majority, "write 'em off"). And he gives every issue a sort of epic significance that is, very often, hogwash (farmers offer "more than food and fibre"; equalization is more than numbers; everything is deeper than what you petty mortals believe it to be) — but which is still often quite moving. I'm not at all sure what kind of public administrator Ken Dryden would be ("Wait! Don't shut that abandoned government warehouse down! Don't you understand that it's more than a warehouse? Don't you see it has dreams inside?..."), but I have no doubt he sings at frequencies only Liberals can hear, and I expect him to grow his support after a very haphazard start.

I agree with a lot of that. For me - the question remains - who has the best chance to rebuild the Liberal Party from a pratical political perspective ? - funding, organization, attention.

Liberal Fundraising Woes to Continue...

2006-06-12T08:32:00.000-04:00

Bill Curry in the Globe and Mail today writes about the potential woes the Liberals will facing under the even harsher election financing restrictions in the Accountability Act.

The next election will be fought with this new law in effect ($1,000 donation limit, no corporate or union donations to party of candidate). This once again highlights in the importance of electing a candidate that can not only beat Stephen Harper in the air (ideas. vision etc) but also on the ground (raising money, and drawing people out to events).

I revert back to a previous post I made regarding Ken Dryden:

What's the problem - The Liberals cannot raise small amounts of money from Canadians. Clearly the Conservatives have a huge advantage on us, while the NDP is also doing better among small donors (double the number of contributors). So, when I look to a leadership candidate who will be able to get the party back into fighting shape, money, as always, talks.

Ask yourself, which of the 11 candidates can go into rural Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta and draw a crowd out larger than say 30 or 40 people? Bob Rae? - Maybe in rural Ontario, but that is just to throw eggs at him. Michael Ignatieff? - Highly doubtful - he's too much like John Kerry. Stephane Dion - most likely, NO.

So when I look at Ken Dryden - with his unbeatable name recognition and personal appeal - I say this man can be a cash cow for the Liberals in an era of tight personal contribution limits and no corporate or union donations. It is time for the Liberal Party to become a mass party, appealing to thousands of Canadians. And for mainly that reason - I will be supporting him.

That was then - and I am more convinced that despite some of his disadvantages - Ken Dryden is the best choice for the Liberals now if they want to win the next election. If the party is satisfied to sit it out for 6-8 more years, then Iggie, Kennedy or Dion will do. If they want to sit it out for the nest 8 to 12 years, then elect Bob Rae.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics...(Was the 2004 election stolen?)

2006-06-06T09:34:00.000-04:00

I noticed a number of bloggers referencing the Rolling Stone article by Robert Kennedy Jr. about whether the 2004 presidential election was stolen. While I believe it probably was, Mystery Pollster breaks down his arguments.

Statistics can be easy skewed to a person's opinion. His blog makes it clear that the arguments in the article may not be all true.

The 2006 Canadian Political Science Association Conference

2006-05-31T13:33:00.000-04:00

This weekend I'm headed to "The Big Smoke" to attend the 2006 Canadian Political Science Association conference at York University.

The agenda looks interesting. Some interesting papers are going to be presented. I will do a debrief on Monday when I am back in town.

More Firepower from Al Gore

2006-05-31T13:30:00.000-04:00

In an interview with the Guardian in the UK, Al Gore refered to the Bush administration as:

"A renegade band of rightwing extremists"

I like it - maybe its time for us to start pointing out how Harper easily fits into that mold.

The article can be accessed here.

California Seeks to Bolster Election Clout

2006-05-31T13:27:00.000-04:00

“Seeking to force presidential candidates to pay attention to California's 15.5 million voters, state lawmakers on Tuesday jumped aboard a new effort that would award electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

“Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide.”

Just Abolish the Senate...

2006-05-30T14:24:00.000-04:00

In today’s Globe and Mail, Brian Laghi writes about Prime Minister Harper’s plan to reform the Senate. First he’s going to term limit them and then this will force him to replace them through elections since he pledged he would never appoint Senators (oops Michel Fortier).

Well, I agree that adding term limits to Senators is a good idea, but I do not agree with electing new representatives to fill the empty seats. We should just let the Senate slowly die with a goal of total vacancy by 2010.

Why abolish the Senate? Well my reasoning is not based on the fact that it’s the best option. It is based on the conclusion that the alternatives are far worse.

Status Quo Doesn’t Work…

First let us discuss the current Senate. Despite a membership of some genuine scholars and hardworking individuals, an unelected, unaccountable representative institution does not have a place in what is supposed to be a healthy and vibrant democracy. Australia got rid of their unelected Senate years ago and the US did away with their appointed Senate in the early 1900s.

Arguments in favour of the chamber of sober second thought do not mesh anymore. The Courts serve that purpose. If the elected House of Commons steps outside its bounds then the Courts rein them in. The Senate has not blocked legislation in a meaningful way in a very long time. If they are not willing to be a chamber of sober second thought, why should they exist? The very political pressure that they are supposed to be able to overcome (public opinion, mob rule mentalities) stops them from dutifully doing their work (For example – what if the Senate blocked passage of the Accountability Act? BTW – it definitely should, more on that in another post).

Therefore, the current Senate – with all its unelected, unaccountable members – is unacceptable and has to go.

But Electing It Won’t Fix Its…

Now that we’ve concluded that the current Senate is unacceptable, what about doing what Reformers and Harper have been calling for for years – “let’s elect the thing”.

Well I am against that too. If we choose to elect Senators, we automatically give them more legitimacy and therefore, they will demand more power. You cannot say that an elected member in the House of Commons is more important than an elected member in the Senate. With equal legitimacy (popular election) comes equal power. And within the system of responsible government how would such a system work? Can the Senate defeat the budget and cause an election? Does the government need the confidence of both houses of Parliament?

I say look to the framers of the Constitution. The Senate was made an appointed body in part to fulfill the patronage tendencies of the time, but also because the framers did not want to give the Senate an equal footing with the House. Hence its lack of power in matters related to budgets and defence.

If you give the Senate legitimacy through a vote, then you have to give it more power. And it is at this point that I cannot support an elected Senate. Responsible and Parliamentary democracy cannot survive in the Canadian context with an elected second chamber. It works in the United States because of the division of powers and executive separated government. It can’t here in Canada.

Heck – no province has a second representative body anymore. If a province like Ontario can manage (despites its clear regional cleavages) than so can Canada. Some improvements can be made to representation in the House, but there is no need to elect Senators.

So there you have it – abolishing the Senate is the only acceptable option because the current Senate is unaccountable and undemocratic but a democratic and accountable body will conflict with our system of government. This will cause more headaches than solutions.

So Mr. Harper – ABOLISH THE SENATE!

Generic Ballot Measurement in the United States

2006-05-25T15:51:00.000-04:00

For those of you closely following the political landscape in the United States and particularly poll results showing the Democrats in a lead and ready to take back Congress, check out this post by Mystery Pollster (aka Mark Blumenthal) about what the generic ballot means and how we should take it with a grain of salt.

It also makes reference to a recent Democracy Corps poll released on three lower tier, potential Democratic Party pick ups this fall. From Mystery Pollster:

Right now, however, the value of the generic vote is mostly for comparisons with polls conducted by the same organzation using identical language at this point in prior election cycles. For example, the Pew Center did just that and concluded, "there has been only a handful of occasions since 1994 when either party has held such a sizable advantage in the congressional horse race."

But remember the limitations: These generic questions may be telling us more about voters' general attitudes about politics right now than about their candidate preference. And, as with any poll, tomorrow's opinions may be different.

So while there is reason to be optimistic about a Democratic takeover, it should be cautious optimism.

Political Hack's Bookclub - Politics Lost

2006-05-25T14:52:00.000-04:00

Since I'm going to be doing all this reading over the next four to five years pursuing my PhD I figured I'd start writing a few short book reviews of books I've read and provide other reviews of the same book. If you have also read the book, please leave your comments or send me an email because I'm interested in feedback.

This week: Politics Lost, by Joe Klein - ISBN: 0385510276

Joe Klein is an excellent writer. For a non-fiction book, Politics Lost is entertaining and engaging, bringing the reader into the world of political consultants and American politics. Made famous by Primary Colors, Klein sets out on a crusade against the almightly political consultant. He argues, and quite successfully in my opinion, that American politics is being ruined by political consultants.

One of my favourite examples is of the 2000 Presidential election and Al Gore. In the book, Klein explains how Gore was taken off his message by consultants who wanted him to focus on core Democratic Party issues like education, jobs and healthcare. Despite it being good politics, Klein argued that these issues, while important, were not key passion drivers for Gore and thus his often robotic, boring tone. Klein believes that had Gore been allowed to talk about global warming, the environment and other issues he has worked on his entire political career, his public persona would have been different and he would have won the election. According to Klein, in 2000, Al Gore didn't loose the election, his political consultants did.

The book was very good and a fairly easy read. It goes through American elections from the 1960s to 2004 and John Kerry. It is a strong critique of American politics and the pundits and politicos that drive politicians away from speaking their mind and towards speaking to a select group of voters that will ensure their reelection.

At the end, the basic argument is that politics and our political leaders are no longer authentic. It’s authenticity that separates winners from losers, good politics from bad, and he-man leader types from consultant-directed puppet boys. Real politicians say honest and heartfelt and down-home things while the shames listen to the consultants and utter simple cliches and market-tested drivel.

The AH HA Factor

While reading this book I couldn't help but think of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. Instead of presenting Canadians with a broad vision for the country, he has focused almost obsessively on his five key priorities which were undoubtedly market tested with his key target - middle class families who live in suburban ridings across Canada - particularly in the GTA and around Montreal.

Klein would harshly critize this approach and even suggest that it may backfire eventually.

What others say about it:

History Wire runs a review: "One of the book's most interesting sections discusses the phenomenon of the political maverick, from John McCain and John Anderson to Ross Perot and Howard Dean. Their initial appeal usually comes from the fact that they are not handled at the outset -- probably can't afford a handler -- so they say what's on their mind, something voters often find refreshing. Soon, they're winning primaries, which convinces some candidates they really are the Second Coming."

"Then, either they decide to employ political consultants, who script them beyond recognition. Or they insist on going it alone and, inevitably, flame out because they have underestimated the complexity of the system and the land mines that will be thrown into their paths. Politics Lost is, at once, substantive, anecdotal and stimulating."

Other Reviews

New York Times Book Review by Jennifer Senior

The New Republic Review by Jonathan Chait

A review by George Will at the Washington Post

Al Gore: The Comeback Kid?

2006-05-23T10:11:00.000-04:00

Will Gore run?
I think he will. The political environment is perfect for his comeback and he may be the only candidate able to defeat Hillary in '08.

His new movie will get him lots of press and his recent appearence on SNL was priceless.

There's a great article in New York Magazine this weekend.

New Ipsos Poll - Liberals, NDP Slip as Tories Surge

2006-05-23T08:41:00.000-04:00

Ipsos released a new poll today that has the Tories up by 18 points.

Conservatives -43%
Liberals - 25%
NDP - 15%
Bloc - 9%

Margin of error - plus or minus 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.

You can get the full story here.

So what does this mean?

1. Liberals have no leader.
2. Conservatives have been keeping their promises and nothing bad has happened.
3. The NDP has been hitting the Liberals hard and now both parties are paying for it.
4. The Liberal Party is dead in Quebec (at only 14% compared to 33% for the Tories).

Dryden Interview with Calgary Grit

2006-05-22T17:06:00.000-04:00

Calgary Grit had a great interview with Ken while he was in Calgary.

You can get it here.

Afhganistan Vote Details

2006-05-18T09:06:00.000-04:00

This morning I did a little research into the vote last night on the Afghan mission. In particular, I was interested in how the Liberal caucus voted since the other parties voted by party line.

Liberal Caucus (102 members)

Speaker = 1 (did not vote)
Yes votes (in favour of mission) = 23 (including Brison, Iggie, and Graham)
No votes (opposed to mission) = 67 (including Dryden, Fry, Bennett, Bevi, and Volpe)

And now for the interesting part - those who didn't bother show up to vote = 11

Ray Bonin (Nickelback)
John Cannis (Scarborough Centre)
Raymond Chan (Richmond)
Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal) - surpised!
John Godfrey (Don Valley West)
Ralph Goodale (Wascana)
Charles Hubbard (Miramichi)
Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt)
Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard) - not surprised - always been a chicken
Lucienne Robillard (Westmount-Ville-Marie) - wonder what public opinion is in Quebec
Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill)

I think if Liberals are wondering how the Conservatives possibly won that vote (and I was surprised) the answer is not with Ignatieff and Brison who we knew would take unique positions for political reasons. But some of the MPs above undoubtedly would have voted against the motion.

I think Canadians need to ask where these voters were. Were they sitting it out purposefully to let the vote pass? Was this contrived by the Liberals and Conservatives? Canadians need to ask these questions - remember, the devil is in the details.

Endorsement: Ken Dryden for Leader

2006-05-16T14:10:00.000-04:00

Seeing as though many of my fellow bloggers have recently provided their preferred candidate for the Liberal leadership - I decided to sit down and get my opinions out on paper (or computer screen).

I will be voting for delegates committed to KEN DRYDEN.

Ken is my choice for three specific reasons.

Fundraising Potential

My most significant reason for supporting Ken is due to the clear disadvantage the Liberal Party now faces in fundraising.

The first quarter results speak for themselves.

Party (Number of Contributors, Average Contribution)

Conservatives - $5,371,354.00 (37,391, $143.65)

Liberals - $ 1,328,515.12 (6,493, $204.61)

NDP - $1,113,563.26 (12,850, $86.66)

Bloc - $147,855.66 (1,902, $77.74)

Green - $125,782.89 (1,612, $78.03)

What's the problem - The Liberals cannot raise small amounts of money from Canadians. Clearly the Conservatives have a huge advantage on us, while the NDP is also doing better among small donors (double the number of contributors).

So, when I look to a leadership candidate who will be able to get the party back into fighting shape, money, as always, talks.

Ask yourself, which of the 11 candidates can go into rural Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta and draw a crowd out larger than say 30 or 40 people? Bob Rae? - Maybe in rural Ontario, but that is just to throw eggs. Michael Ignatieff? - Highly doubtful. Stephane Dion - most likely, NO.

So when I look at Ken Dryden - with his unbeatable name recognition and personal appeal - I say this man can be a cash cow for the Liberals. And for mainly that reason - I will be supporting him.

But my support is not only based on money.

Head Start in Name Recognition

If Ken is elected leader on December 3rd, he will not have to work for five months to increase his name recognition. People know who he is - what he has done. This also is useful in making it harder for the Conservatives and the NDP to define him. What if Bob Rae wins? Harper et al. will have a field day defining the Liberal Party based on Bob Rae's record (a record he accomplished not as a Liberal). And Ignatieff - well 30 years out of the country, supporter of the War in Iraq - can you say Jack Layton's own wet dream?

The fact is - it will be difficult to attack Ken personally. He's a big, lovable guy that many Canadians idolize. Harper will only be able to attack his policy positions. And this will allow us to contrast our ideas and I believe more Canadians subscribe to Liberal ideas than Conservatives ones (just look at the 2006 election results - Conservatives 37%, everyone else 63%)

And finally - vision, intellect and down home charm.

Ken Can Sell Liberalism

Its easy to say - "the government has to get its hand out of your pocket" and "less government is good government" - but simple 10 second sound bites can't build a country.

I like Ken's "Big Canada" vision. It speaks to directly the kind of federal government we need. Big vision, big endeavors, big results - heck Preston Manning even told us to Think Big - unfortunately his prodigal son (Harper) didn't listen.

I think Ken is the only candidate that can walk into small town Canada, and speak directly to people. First because as mentioned earlier because they will come to hear him, but second because I think he gets it. He's not an academic and he's not an idiot. He speaks directly to what Canadians want to hear - a proud country that puts people first. The "its cheaper when we pay for it together" attitude of small L liberalism.

Yes - he needs some work to focus his speeches and get directly to the point - all of which can happen. If Stephen Harper can turn around is image anyone can.

But Ken can reconnect the party to the grassroots. To progressive Canadians who lost faith in our party during the last 13 years. We are the party of public healthcare, of old age pensions, of the Charter of Rights, of economic prosperity and a strong national government.

Canadian unity will come when each region is strong and each is an equal partner in the grand endeavour. I'm excited for the future of the Liberals if Ken is leader.

He has my full support.

So to sum it all up:

1. Money, money, money - only Ken can reconnect and build a base of small donors across the country.
2. Unbeatable name recognition
3. Vision, intellect and passion.

Will Harper Flip and Flop on Gun Registry?

2006-05-16T14:05:00.000-04:00

Here's some interesting information from Wikipedia:

Harper was the only Reform MP to vote for a bill establishing the Canadian gun registry at second reading stage in 1995, although he voted against it at third reading. He made his initial decision after concluding that a majority of his constituents supported the measure, but later decided that there was substantial opposition to the law.^[13]

I have read this somewhere else too. If his constituents wanted it back then, and the registry is accessed over 5,000 times a day - wouldn't the Conservatives be wasting another billion dollars scrapping this program?

Sure it wasn't managed well up to this point - but they are not arguing we don't need - they just want to rid the country of Liberal waste. Well - Harper, step up - keep the registry that you voted for and make it work more efficiently.

Ambrose Should Sit and Watch this Movie

2006-05-16T10:05:00.000-04:00

Al Gore's new documentary on Climate Change will raise the issue again to the next level.

Isn't great that as the world is really waking up to the reality that its global warming, Harper and his chums back away.

Check it out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270&q=an+inconvenient+truth&pl=true

Josh, Toby, CJ and Jed - We will miss you.

2006-05-15T10:03:00.000-04:00

Last night, the West Wing signed off for the last time. It was a bittersweet episode.

I will definitely miss this show - it was the only good thing on television.

Read this. A great account of the finale.

Libs need fundraising reform

2006-05-15T09:05:00.000-04:00

Appearing in the Hill Times.

In the face of dramatically declining financial contributions and in a new era of political financing, the once reigning Liberal Party needs a bold new grassroots strategy and a clearer, more compelling message to raise money, say Liberal MPs.

Political party financing returns for the first quarter of 2006, released by Elections Canada at the start of the month, show the governing Conservative Party continues to benefit from the new fundraising rules that came into force in 2004. The party received $5.6-million from 37,000 contributors in the first quarter of 2006, $4.2-million more than the Liberal Party's earnings of $1.3-million, which came from only 6,493 contributors.

Under the current financing laws, introduced by former prime minister Jean Chrétien before he left office in 2003, corporate and union donations are limited to $1,000 and individuals can contribute up to $5,000. The measures are said to democratize fundraising and limit corporate influence through political contributions.

The Liberals saw a dramatic drop in fundraising after the introduction of the new rules. In 2003, before the current law came into force, the Liberals attracted $24-million in contributions, but in 2004, under the new rules, the party raked in just $5.2-million, according to Elections Canada financial data.

But the Conservative government, under the Federal Accountability Act, which is now being studied at the Commons Bill C-2 Legislative Committee, proposes to outright ban all corporate, union and organization donations. The bill will only allow up to $1,000 contributions annually for individuals.

Liberal MP Stephen Owen (Vancouver-Quadra, BC), who is on the legislative committee studying the Federal Accountability Act, said he supports the new limits on campaign contributions because they will reduce public cynicism surrounding corporate influence in politics, but he acknowledged that the Liberal Party will have to look at developing more grassroots support from a base of permanent party members.

"I think that's always been the intention, but I think perhaps more emphasis now will have to go in that direction, even though it's an area that wasn't neglected before," Mr. Owen said. "When that becomes more and more the major source of electoral financing, then we're going to have to. That's the name of the game, certainly now. Get as broad a signed-up, permanent membership as you can, donating on an annual basis, especially in a minority government, you never know when you're going to need it."

Mr. Owen added, however, that he thinks the Liberals will have to go through a period of adjustment before making significant gains in the new era of political fundraising. "I think for all parties it will take an adjustment in how funds are raised," Mr. Owen said. "In my own constituency we've never had difficulty raising funds, but it's been from small fundraising activities and dinners and small donations from lots of people."

The new rules proposed in Bill C-2 appear to spell more trouble for the Liberal Party, which continues to suffer from the limits on corporate donations and lagging party support nationally. In the first quarter of 2006, according to the data released this month, the Liberals earned about only $183,000 more than the federal NDP, which received $1.1 million from 12,850 contributors.

A poll released last week by Decima Research for The Canadian Press also suggested the Conservatives are at 41 per cent nationally and the Liberals at 29 per cent. The NDP had 16 per cent support nationally, according to the poll, the Bloc Québécois nine per cent and the Green Party seven. The poll, conducted May 4 to 7, surveyed 1,008 people and is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 per cent, 19 times in 20.

"Clearly the party needs to reform its fundraising, to a more broad-based, a more grassroots approach," Liberal leadership candidate Scott Brison (Kings-Hants, NS) told The Hill Times last week on his way into Question Period on the Hill. He suggested that the Liberal Party leadership campaign, now under way and scheduled to select a new leader at a convention in December in Montreal, will help renew grassroots support for the party as new policy ideas are discussed and absorbed by the public.

"I think national permanent membership will help significantly, and I think that money follows message. With clearer messages that affect people it will be more compelling for them to support us," Mr. Brison said. "As we have a clearer message, and as we present our ideas, individual Canadians, I believe, will see merit in supporting them [candidates] both personally and financially."

Conservative MP Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Alta.), the Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), said the Liberal party is going to face further fundraising troubles with the new limits proposed in Bill C-2.

"They've got a great challenge because they're not a grassroots party. It's a party of powerful elites, corporate donors and

Bay Street lawyers and lobbyists who have propped them up financially," Mr. Kenney said. "Now, with the elimination of corporate donations and reducing individual donations from $5,000 to $1,000, they'll have a hard time making ends meet."

When asked to give the Liberals advice on a grassroots strategy, Mr. Kenney smiled and said: "You have to find issues that have a broad-based, popular appeal. I'm not going to give them our secrets. Maybe they should read our platform."

As a result of the 2004 political financing legislation, the government subsidizes parties after each election with $1.75 per vote received, and large donations must be disclosed. Liberal MP Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Ont.) questions the proposed limits in Bill C-2, saying they are likely to shut out some areas of support, and said he wonders how much administration and enforcement will cost with so many limits and reporting requirements for political donations.

"While I see the good public purpose envisaged by that, it's going to mean that parties are certainly going to have to restructure, and it is notable that large portions of public money now go to political parties," Mr. Lee said. "The next question will probably be, now that no institutional donations are going to be accepted--if the bill is passed--what proportion of political party expenses are going to be borne by the tax payer and what proportion by the individual donors? This is something that we haven't had to deal with directly before."

Mr. Lee also noted that the NDP used to benefit from large union donations, but Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, Man.), said the party is adapting. "I don't think anything's changed for us," Ms. Wasylycia-Leis said. "It's always hard to build, to maintain a mass-based party, but that's what we aim to do."

Although Ms. Wasylycia-Leis said it will be fairly easy for even individual donors to reach the proposed $1,000 limit, she said she supports the measures. She added that the NDP found fundraising easier in the last election and has found successful fundraising in her riding through teas, garage sales and other grassroots events.

"I think it's important," Ms. Wasylycia-Leis said. "We want to get away from big money in politics to ensure that ordinary citizens have a way to support and participate, financially as well as through direct participation."

Tories lead in first SES Poll since February

2006-05-11T15:51:00.000-04:00

SES Research (the most accurate pollster out there) released a new poll today which has the Tories at 38%, the Liberals at 28% and the NDP at 19%. These results are a little different from past polls - especially NDP support. Since SES got it right during the election - they're the only polls I trust.

You can download the statsheet here.

Will Gerard Kennedy run in Quebec?

2006-05-11T12:52:00.000-04:00

Today a thought occurred to me. Is Kennedy going to run in Quebec if he wins the leadership of the Liberal Party? I mean - he says he's quitting his seat in the Ontario legislature and packing up his family and moving to Quebec.

Now - if he is serious about this move - will he run there? If he doesn't commit to running there than its just another stunt.

So I think it's time the media asks - Will Kennedy run in Quebec? And if so - then in what riding?

Trouble for Democrats?

2006-05-11T09:53:00.000-04:00

According to the New York Times, tension is building between DNC chairman Howard Dean and Democratic congressional leaders. “Dean was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee on an unusual promise: To send millions of dollars in contributions to build up state Democratic parties, even in states that vote solidly Republican." Dean "has done precisely that. But the policy that has defined his tenure -- while delighting state Democratic chairmen -- has embroiled him in a battle with the two Congressional Democrats leading the effort to retake Congress this fall.”

In a "heated meeting" last week, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) "challenged Mr. Dean on his 50-state program, saying it was undercutting Democratic hopes of taking back the House and the Senate, Democrats said. They warned that Mr. Dean was squandering an opportunity by sending money to parties in states that are a long way from becoming Democratic.”

The Washington Post notes that the argument was so fierce, Emanuel “stormed out of Dean's office several days ago leaving a trail of expletives.”

Newark Election Results - "Street Fight" #2

2006-05-10T13:15:00.000-04:00

For anyone who saw "Street Fight" on CBC Newsworld on Sunday evening might be interested to know this.

In Newark, Booker Elected in a Landslide

"Cory Booker, the young, Ivy League-educated lawyer who fought an unsuccessful battle four years ago against the domineering incumbent Sharpe James, has been elected mayor, marking the start of a new political era in New Jersey's largest city," the New York Times reports.

Despite the nasty race against James in 2002, the Newark Star Ledger notes Booker held out an olive branch last night saying, "I want to take a hat off to the man who occupies the seat now, and I hope you all give applause to Mayor Sharpe James."

Liberal Leadership: Leger Poll - Dryden and Rae Lead

2006-05-10T11:25:00.000-04:00

Leger Marketing released a poll yesterday with some interesting results. Keep in mind, 41% of Liberals were unsure, and 51% of Canadians were unsure. Nevertheless, it gives a quick snapshot of how the race is shaping out.

Question: Among the following candidates who have joined the Liberal leadership race, who seems more capable of leading the Liberal Party of Canada? Is it....

Toronto Muncipal Race: Pitfield Can't Beat Miller

2006-05-08T10:58:00.000-04:00

An article in the Globe and Mail interviewed a number of key people in the past campaigns of Mel Lastman and John Tory.

The conclusion?

None wished to speak for attribution about Ms. Pitfield's prospects -- and none expressed much enthusiasm for her candidacy.

Dennis Mills for Mayor?

Some are doing more than waiting. Behind the scenes, a number of the powerful politicos that put Mr. Lastman in the mayor's chair are looking for another candidate.

The current hot prospect is Mr. Mills.

Now the vice-chairman of Magna Entertainment Corp., Mr. Mills was an aide to former prime minister Pierre Trudeau and a four-term Liberal MP for Toronto Danforth who earned a reputation as one of the most effective organizers in the House of Commons.

He provided the political push for the Pope's World Youth Day visit in 2002 and organized the Rolling Stones-headlined benefit concert after the SARS outbreak in 2003.

He almost dropped out of politics before the 2004 election, but stayed on to run unsuccessfully against NDP Leader Jack Layton, after which then-prime minister Paul Martin named him a one-man task force on the redevelopment of the Toronto waterfront -- a file that would land on his desk again if he were to become mayor.

Mr. Mills said last week that his priority is business, but also expressed an interest in getting into city politics at some point.

"Once our team cuts Magna Entertainment free of debt, I would like to challenge David Miller to turn his promises into performance," Mr. Mills said in an interview.

Despite his protestations, Mr. Mills is under heavy pressure to get into the race. One source said that if the money and campaign team needed for a serious challenge are lined up by midsummer, it is still better than even odds the former MP will enter the race by Labour Day.

A New SES Research Poll

2006-05-08T10:52:00.000-04:00

Canada's most accurate pollster, SES Research, released a new Ontario poll this morning.

The findings should be a little worrisome for Dalton McGuinty.

Question: I am going to read you three statements and I would like you to me which statement, if any, comes closest to your view? (Read and Rotate)
a. The McGuinty led provincial government focuses too much on cities.
b. The McGuinty led provincial government focuses too much on small/rural communities.
c. McGuinty led provincial government has struck the proper balance between both.

Statement A: 43%
Statement B: 14%
Statement C: 27%
Unsure 20%

Liberal Leadership: Weekend Roundup

2006-05-08T10:29:00.000-04:00

All 11 leadership candidates met in Toronto over the weekend for the annual meeting of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario). Here's a round up of the weekend:

Is Ken Dryden the sleeper candidate who will surprise everyone? I think so... and so does Shoshana (more to come in a few days on this).

From the CTV:

"Losing stinks," summed up hockey legend and former minister Ken Dryden.

He said Liberals need to adopt a positive attitude in order to save the country from another Harper election victory.

"We have to win. Not maybe win, not like to win. Win."
Former Ontario education minister Gerard Kennedy echoed that sentiment: "We cannot let Stephen Harper do to Canada what (former premier) Mike Harris did to Ontario."

Bob Rae, a former NDP premier of Ontario, told about 1,400 party faithful that the Harper government's first "focus group budget" on Tuesday, laden with small tax breaks for various groups, shows "this is not a government that's thinking about the future; it is a government that is only trying to buy an election."

Cherniak on the Leadership panel

New Strategic Counsel Poll - Tories Drop

2006-05-08T10:22:00.000-04:00

A new poll by Strategic Counsel was released on Saturday that shows a slight dip for the Tories and a slight increase for the Liberals.

Conservatives: 35% (-4)
Liberals: 31% (+2)
NDP: 16% (+2)
Bloc: 10% (-1)
Green: 9% (+2)

May 3rd and 4th, 2006. The Strategic Counsel interviewed 1,000 Canadians, just after the Tory government released its first budget on May 2. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Analysis: Well the tory drop is outside the margin which suggests that Canadians were responding not only to the budget but also to the mess caused by the four deaths in Afghanistan and the flag flop. Despite Strategic Counsel's poor performance in the past election, the poll does show some movement down for the Conservatives. However, I find the 9% for the Green Party way too high. Especially since they have had no press since the election. I'd be interested to know who they ask this question. SC and Ipsos always has a very high Green vote - something is obviously happening and its probably a result of the methodology used.

Famous Republican Pollster Frank Luntz Meets with Harper

2006-05-08T10:17:00.000-04:00

The Globe and Mail reports that Stephen Harper recently met with Frank Luntz, Republican pollster extrodinare and co-author of the Contract with America (the platform used by the GOP in 1994 to take Congress).

Mr. Luntz said the Prime Minister is one of the Conservative Party's assets. "You have a gentleman who may well be the smartest leader intellectually. Now, that is half the battle. The other half of the battle is to link that intelligence to the day-to-day lives of the average individual."

Voters want someone who is credible and trustworthy more than a person who shares their ideas, Mr. Luntz said. "More than anything else, they want to know that you are a straight shooter."

This just provides more fooder for those who believe that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are too close to Bush's GOP friends. Word of advice - George W. has an approval rating ranging from 30 to 36%. I'd stay away from any strategy that he's employed with a ten foot poll (pardon the pun).

Geography hurts Democrats

2006-05-08T10:14:00.000-04:00

In today's Washington Post, an article appears that explains the disadvantage that the Democrats face leading up to the 2006 mid-term elections.

With Democrats locked out of the White House and in the minority in Congress, it might seem that there just aren't enough Democratic voters to win elections. But political scientist Gary Jacobson says the problem is actually more complicated: The distribution of Republican voters is more politically effective across the nation.
Jacobson's research shows a little more than half of all the nation's 435 congressional districts over recent decades consistently favored Republican presidential candidates. A little less than 40 percent went for Democrats. (The remainder had a mixed pattern.) Jacobson, at the University of California at San Diego, said this is due to an "inefficient" distribution of Democratic voters, with many concentrations of 60 percent or more in urban areas and places with large numbers of minorities. Republicans, he found, are distributed more evenly, yielding more districts in which GOP voters have a slimmer but sturdy majority.

Despite all the bad news for the GOP - retaking Congress is not a foresure thing for the Democrats.

The 2008 Presidential Line Up

2006-05-05T15:53:00.000-04:00

A look at the 2008 Presidential line up from The Fix at the Washington Post:
THE DEMOCRATS

Evan Bayh: The Fix's dark horse in the presidential field, Indiana's Evan Bayh is working as hard as any other candidate in terms of his travel schedule and getting face time with key donors. He's also less conservative and less dull than most people think. Plus, Bayh will end 2006 with at least $10 million (and probably several million more) in his Senate campaign account, which he can transfer directly to a presidential committee. Bayh's challenge is to win, place or show in the '08 Iowa caucuses, since he has a natural geographic appeal there and has already been spending considerable time courting the state's voters. If Bayh doesn't make a strong showing in Iowa, it's hard to see how he stays competitive in New Hampshire and beyond. (Of course, it remains to be seen what state or states will be added by the Democratic National Committee to hold their primaries between Iowa and New Hampshire -- an X-factor in every Democratic hopeful's calculations.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton: When people ask why Clinton is in a class by herself in the Democratic field, the answer is money, money, money. Clinton has raised $40 million for her Senate reelection bid since 2001 and had roughly half that amount on hand at the end of March. She will likely close 2006 with between $20 million and $25 million in the bank. And here's the kicker: Every person who gave to her Senate campaign can ante up again for a presidential bid -- providing her with an even bigger head start over her opponents than her huge cash-on-hand total suggests. Liberals remain skeptical about Clinton because of her lack of outspokenness on the Iraq war, but after eight years without the White House they may swallow those doubts in hopes of winning back the nation's top office.

John Edwards: Though we are not numerically ranking the five candidates, Edwards has slipped a bit in our mind since the last presidential Line. Edwards and his strategists seem supremely confident that he can raise the $10 million (or more) he will need in the first quarter of 2007 in order to be competitive with the likes of Clinton, Bayh and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Maybe. Edwards is the most naturally talented politician in the field, a raw charisma that paid major dividends in 2004. And he will benefit (as will Kerry) from having been through the wringer of national politics once before. But there just doesn't seem to be the same energy for Edwards in the insider community as there was at this time in 2002. Given his skills, we keep him on the Line but count us as skeptical about his fundraising strategy at the moment.

John Kerry: Our belief that the 2004 nominee will run again in 2008 keeps growing. Two weeks ago Kerry spoke at Faneuil Hall in Boston to mark the 35th anniversary of his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after returning from Vietnam,. Kerry is also one of three candidates (Bayh and Clinton are the others) who will likely start 2007 with $10 million or more in a presidential account, ensuring him a spot on the Line for the foreseeable future. Kerry remains devoid of buzz among the chattering classes, but he has managed, somewhat remarkably, to reclaim his standing as a leader in the party over the last 18 months.

Mark Warner: After scanning through mounds of financial reports, we were amazed to find that Warner's Forward Together PAC had 23 employees at the end of March -- the second-largest staff maintained by a prospective Democratic presidential candidate other than Sen. Clinton's HILLPAC operation. And Warner's fundraising through the PAC -- $5 million since he began collecting cash for it last July -- is an extremely impressive total, especially considering that Warner never had to raise money under federal limits during his gubernatorial term. The story line of Warner as red-state governor has largely run its course; political insiders seem to be waiting for a new act from the Virginian. Given his past successes, we're pretty sure he'll have one.

THE REPUBLICANS

George Allen: The last month has not been Allen's best. He continues to labor under the dual burden of running for reelection this November while also traveling the country to keep his presidential prospects alive. And the senator seemed to be caught off guard by a New Republic profile (link is subscription-only) that details his youthful fascination with the Confederate flag. In the midst of the controversy, Virginia state Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis (the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom Davis) said on a local radio show that "if Jim Webb is [Allen's] opponent, [he] is going to have a very challenging year, particularly in Northern Virginia." Not exactly what the Allen people needed as they were scrambling to get out from under the New Republic story. But as we stated above, Allen is one of three GOP candidates who has the political team, national fundraising chops and policy credentials to compete for the nomination in two years.

Rudy Giuliani: What a difference a month makes. In April, we wroteAnne Dickerson, who served as the right hand man (er, woman) to Mercer Reynolds -- the finance chairman of President Bush's 2004 campaign; Dickerson will run Hizzoner's Solutions America PAC. Giuliani stopped in to Iowa earlier this week, the hotbed of presidential politics, for a fundraiser for state Rep. Jeff Lamberti. And he met with some key South Carolina operatives in New York City last month. Although a Giuliani candidacy now looks more likely, he must still find a way to appeal to conservatives despite his liberal views on abortion, gun control and gay rights. (and firmly believed) that there was little chance Giuliani would attempt a White House run. Today, it seems more likely than not that the former New York City mayor will jump into the contest. Giuliani announced Thursday that he has hired

Mike Huckabee: The Arkansas governor makes the Line for a second straight month largely on potential. Huckabee is the candidate seemingly best equipped to appeal to social conservatives (he is a Baptist minister) while also offering an unorthodox appeal to other elements within the party (note the media coverage he's gotten from his emphasis on nutrition, exercise and weight loss). But -- and it is a big but -- Huckabee just hasn't capitalized on the momentum he had coming into 2006. It doesn't help that his decision to sign a minimum wage increase last month drew the ire of fiscal hawks in the party -- led by the Club For Growth, which called Huckabee a "liberal." The window for Huckabee to move into the top tier is still open, but not as wide as it once was.

John McCain: American Research Group, an independent polling firm, this week released a series of surveys on possible 2008 Republican primary match-ups that includes data collected in key early presidential states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. McCain led the field in each of the three states, and without Giuliani as an option, the Arizona senator was lapping the competition. While polling at this stage of the 2008 race is largely a function of name identification, the surveys show that McCain sits in the driver's seat in each of the three early contests. McCain has made his ascent to the top of the Republican pack look easy, but he still must answer lingering doubts about his Republican bona fides if he hopes to become the party's nominee.

Mitt Romney: It's hard to underestimate the importance of Romney playing a leadership role in the passage of legislation to mandate health care insurance for every Massachusetts resident. It has drawn him favorable coverage from the dean of political reporters -- The Post's own David Broder -- and it gives Romney something to tout on the campaign trail -- a sterling example of his ability to forge compromise and solve problems. Romney is also moving around the country as aggressively as any other Republican candidate. For all the talk of Romney's Mormonism as a potential hurdle, his religious affiliation also has its benefits. Witness a recent Romney fundraiser in Utah where he raked in better than $1 million -- a shockingly large total for a state not traditionally known for its political bankrolling.

Harper Taxing Softwood Duties Returned to Canada

2006-05-05T14:32:00.000-04:00

A great story found by BCer in Toronto.

Yes, you read that right. After surrendering to the U.S. and only getting a portion of our illegally collected softwood duty back from the Bush Administration, the Harper administration will be TAXING the portion of their own money our forestry companies ARE getting back from this deal. The tax windfall could be worth as much as $1 billion to Harper and the provincial governments.

I really should read the business section more often, because otherwise I would have missed this, I think, huge story in the Globe's Report on Business. And Eddie, why wasn't this in the A section anyway, instead of B5?

Wow. Simply wow. The NDP in BC will have a field day with this.

Q1 2006 Federal Fundraising Totals

2006-05-05T14:23:00.000-04:00

Elections Canada has released the latest fundraising totals for Canada's five major parties.

Party (Number of Contributors, Average Contribution)

Conservatives - $5,371,354.00 (37,391, $143.65)

Liberals - $ 1,328,515.12 (6,493, $204.61)

NDP - $1,113,563.26 (12,850, $86.66)

Bloc - $147,855.66 (1,902, $77.74)

Green - $125,782.89 (1,612, $78.03)

Basically, the Liberal Party is in real trouble when it can only muster $200,000 more than the NDP (especially during an election campaign).

It is obvious that the new campaign financing rules established by Jean Chretien have seriously put his own party at the disadvantage. The most shocking difference is in the number of contributions. The Conservatives had a whopping 37,391 contributors compared to only 6,493 for the Liberals. The NDP has almost 13,000.

This shows that more than picking a new leader, the Liberal Party must reshape itself, rebuild its grassroots appeal and start raising some cash. This problem could only get worse with the new campaign finance rules outlined in Harper's accountability act.

A $1,000 maximum contribution limit per Canadians.
No contributions from corporations or unions.

The Conservatives have mastered the grassroots, small contribution method made famous by Preston Manning and the Reform Party. The NDP has always been strong in getting contributions from its supporters (dispite the small average size).

If the Liberals are going to compete during the next election, they have to work quickly to close the fundraising gap between them and the Conservatives.

A New SES Research Poll

2006-05-05T14:13:00.000-04:00

From Canada's most accurate pollster, SES Research.

I guess Harper got the budget right. Ontarians want a little bit of everything.

Latest Polling Results (USA)

2006-05-05T14:08:00.000-04:00

In Michigan, Gubernatorial Race is a Dead Heat

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of Michigan's gubernatorial race shows Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) leading Dick DeVos (R) by just one point, 44% to 43%.

"Early this year Governor Granholm enjoyed a double-digit lead, but it has been eliminated thanks largely to a steady spate of bad news in the auto industry."

Race for Colorado Governor a Toss Up

In the latest Rasmussen Reports survey of the race for Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter (D) and Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-CO) "remain essentially tied," with Beauprez slightly ahead, 39% to 37%, but well within the 4.5% margin of error.

GOP in trouble

2006-05-05T13:53:00.001-04:00

As the 2006 mid-term elections approach, Professor Charles Franklin at the University of Wisconsin has put together some public opinion history regarding the approval rating of the President in 2006.

Prof. Franklin writes:

President Bush's approval rating is on course to set a record low for mid-term elections. The magnitude of the problem is greater than commonly perceived. The previous record low approval in the last Gallup poll of October was 41% for President Truman in 1950. Based on approval trends in 2005-06, the President and Congressional Republicans are facing an election day 2006 approval of between 20.4% and 40.8%. (The range is highlighted in the graph for 2006. The "dot" is the estimate based on the trend in most of 2005, which is less than half the current rate of decline.)

He conculdes his analysis by arguing:

I was frankly shocked at the above results. Other presidents have suffered low approval ratings, and President Bush still stands above the lows of four of the ten other post-war presidents. But I had not appreciated how much the current approval is below other mid-term approval ratings, even without extrapolating current trends. We have simply never seen a president this unpopular going into a midterm election.

I will be surprised if the current rate of decline continues. But I will also be surprised by a sustained upturn at the rate of November-January. Either would be an extreme outcome. But approval between the upper 20s and lower 30s seems entirely plausible. There is no precedent for a midterm with approval at those levels.

Basically - the GOP is screwed. The war in Iraq is not getting better. The scandals involving Karl Rove and lobbying are not going away and the immigration battle continues to put heat on the administration's handling of immgration reform. The only thing that can save the GOP's control of the House and Senate are the Democrats. If they cannot get their act together. It's over for them and it will be a generational opportunity to realign American politics.

Welcome

2006-05-05T13:45:00.000-04:00

Soon I will begin the long (and some say) painful journey in hopes of getting a PhD in Political Science.

In late August, I leave my home of 5 years in Ottawa and head west to the land of oil, low taxes and Conservative domination.

I will be attending the University of Calgary to study Canadian and Comparative politics in the hopes that one day, I too, can be called "Doctor" and be able to teach bright minds about the joy that is Politics.

This blog will be an outlet for me - to throw ideas out there, share information I find around the web and hopefully get good insight into my research and other interests in the political world.

Topics will be broad (as are my interests) ranging from Canadians politics, public opinion research, American politics, elections, municipal politics and public policy.

Enjoy.
-DC