Dec 15, 2008

Let Us Give Thanks to the Coalition (and bury them)

Unwittingly, Canada owes the Three Stooges Coalition its undying gratitude. However, I doubt that the coalition sees it this way, or that they planned it so.
  1. The appearance of the coalition has caused the notion of proportional voting to be put on the back-burner, or to be killed for a really long time. Always distressing to those that thought it through, proportional voting has a killer main drawback. Single issue groups, or fringe wannabes, or even regional "sounds good to me" instant-issue uprisings, can hold a government to ransom. Whether it is the Bloc, the Greens, an "auto workers" party, a religion-based organization, or even some spur-of-the moment issue like Unhappy Income Trust holders, all gain an entre to power and (let's face it) blackmailing.

    I believe that most Canadians opposed to the coalition held this view, even though it was an established political party, the Bloc, that gave them the greatest concern about the potential for holding the government (and, in this case, the rest of Canada) to ransom. But I also suspect that the used car salesman's platform contributed to the hard line against the coalition. After all, if less than 19% of Canadians voted for the NDP (81% against, using the coalition's exquisite logic), their platform wasn't worrisome for Canadians until it became a vivid possibility when members of the unholy coalition came slithering out of their holes around December 1st.

    In good times, and when the likelihood of a fringe party holding Canada to ransom isn't in the cards, the subject of proportional voting likely isn't important to the majority of Canadians. It may even hold some technical or fleeting interest and mindshare. But when the effects of minor or fringe parties and alliances appear, as they did with the self-serving coalition, then Canadians take a stand. And will remember this for quite a while. And that's why proportional voting is not only off the table, but has been dealt a serious blow.

    Because Canadians don't want to become another banana republic, beset by a government de jour that arises from the self-interests of hordes of here-today, gone-tomorrow parties. Whose main platform may be eliminating smoking in cow pastures, or saving one specie of plant in the frozen tundra, or even (gasp) being against duly-elected governments. Canada be damned ... I want my issue solved, and then I don't care what happens as long as my MP cheque arrives in the mail each month.

  2. The coalition also earns our thanks for wonderfully demonstrating their self-serving appearance and agenda. Climbing out of their slimy holes, the coalition presented us with a future Prime Minister who Canadians had soundly rejected not six weeks earlier and who, it turned out, was ill-suited to lead the Liberal party ... let alone a national government. And an agenda conceived in backrooms, one version for the public and multiple wish lists held in reserve for when they were in power. Nice. Not.

    All the great-sounding thrusts, like (unaccountable) Kelowna Accord spending, auto sector bailouts, day care and, of course, "infrastructure" spending. But none of the warts like The Green Shift (tax, tax, tax), or $50 billion in tax increases for all Canadian businesses, and nationalizing everything in sight. That would likely come later when Comrades Jack and Gilles would "negotiate" with Prime Minister Dion (or the Liberal leader of the day) behind closed doors. Because, when you are a Liberal, nothing is as important as regaining power and keeping it, no matter the cost ... to others, of course.

    And would that include a lush Senate appointment for Elizabeth May, the most disgraceful and two-timing politician in the 2008 election? My guess is that it would. After all, aren't key (Liberal) party faithful to be rewarded by an appointment to the Red Chamber?

    And that pesky proposal to cut political parties off the $1.95/vote/year funding at the public teat? No doubt that, far from being eliminated, it would have been retained and increased. After all, when it's Other People's Money ...

  3. Thankfully, Canadians have also had a good look at the motives and character of the coalition. The Bloc's motives are clear on many levels. So too the Liberals who have selected once more to try to quickly grasp power the easy way (from their point of view), rather than repair the very visible democratic deficit that has existed, unaltered, since 2001.

    By the way, I think it's a bit rich for Belinda Stronach to be mouthing off about the leadership selection process in the Liberal party when it was Paul Martin who gave her responsibility for coming up with a plan to repair the Democratic Deficit in the party ... while handing her a minister's portfolio for crossing the floor and keeping his party in power. Which only confirms my opinion of Ms. Stronach: brainless, opportunistic, and lacking principles. Which is why she ended up in the Liberal party in the end. Good company.

  4. Let's not forget Comrade Jack who has never seen a business that shouldn't be taxed or nationalized because, as everyone knows, unions and governments are really good at managing businesses better than owners and shareholders. A graduate laureate of sleaze, Comrade Jack likes to promise everything and to insist that it really won't cost anything because "big business" is paying for it. Sure Jack and, if you really believe that, I'm the tooth fairy. Of course Canadians (and Jack) rationalize his socialist platform by knowing that the NDP will never be in power, so he will never have to keep his "promises" to wreak havoc on the economy and fabric of Canada.

    A charter member of the "promise anything, even if it doesn't make sense" coalition of also-ran parties, Comrade Jack saw the opportunity to seize power at any cost. I thought that mantra belonged solely to the Liberals but, what the heck. Easy, thought Jack, but he miscalculated ... Canadians remembered his 2008 make-believe election platform and said, "Whoa, wait a minute; these Socialists?". And that was the end of Comrade Jack's grasp for fame,and power.

  5. We should also give thanks that the coalition exposed its real core supporters. The trade unions lead by the CAW, the public service alliances (unions, all of them), the unaccountable $5 billion Kelowna handout-wannabe recipients, the Arts Industry handout specialists, the vested-interest environmentalists (including the deplorable Greens) and, of course, the largest cupped palms in the nation ... the Bloc. It's easy to tell who is behind a coup. Just look at the first goodies handed out at the public trough. In this case the trough feeders bear an uncanny resemblance to the self-serving Think Twice coalition of 2006, in which such luminaries as Buzz and May appeared as charter members.
So there you have it. Our delayed Thanksgiving Hall of Shame. Now, if we could just be sure that all the members of the coalition will slither back into their holes and stay there forever, then we really should give thanks to our god, idol, or wallet.

Dec 12, 2008

Put May Under a Leadership Review

I am utterly dismayed by the lack of meaningful progress of the Green Party of Canada (GPC) since the 2006 election. No, make that appalled by the amount of GPC political and financial capital that had been wasted through the disastrous actions of its leader, Elizabeth May.

When you cheese off a major media newspaper, as May has with the National Post, you know that the leader was a train wreck for the party.

So what is the problem that needs fixing, you might ask? Consider these examples of conduct as symptoms of the problem:

1. Ms. May has had a hate-on for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives for a long time now, going back to her Sierra Club and "Think Twice Coalition" (the last hurrah of Buzz, Maude, and all the other vested interest groups).
"Mr. Harper's politics aren't just a threat to Canada; they're a threat to the planet"
(Just an extract of the hyperbolic Think Twice Press Conference, Jan 17/06 during the 2006 election, I believe)
2. Once a lobbyist and a self-interest proponent, always one. This time Ms. May hijacked the GPC (and its unwitting membership and resources) to continue her hate-on (massively AGAINST something), rather than be FOR the GPC ideals, objectives and platform.
Mike Nagy, Green Candidate, Guelph, "blamed calls for strategic voting for a drop in party support on voting day.

"Elizabeth May called for it on some occasions but the party itself was not calling for strategic voting," Nagy said in an interview ... May once stated she would rather see no Green MPs and the Conservatives out of power than a full caucus with Harper as prime minister.

Nagy, the party's environment critic, also made clear he doesn't back May's call for an anti-Conservative coalition. "I believe you promote Green values and you get Greens elected to Parliament. It's not about trying to stop one party," he said. "There has to be some serious discussion in the party so that we are not compromising our votes for the sake of other parties.""

"... there is significant grumbling over Ms. May's refusal to urge Canadians to vote Green in all ridings". Anouk Hoedeman, who has worked as spokesperson for the Green Party of Ontario and is president of the Green Party riding association in Ottawa Centre, said Mr. Cotter's website speaks to a sense of frustration with Ms. May among some Greens.

“The website is a sign that there is a lot of anger and maybe confusion within the party over the whole strategic voting issue and how that was handled,” Ms. Hoedeman said. The Green candidate in Ottawa Centre finished 39 votes short of 10 per cent.

“This is exactly what we were afraid would happen,” Ms. Hoedeman said. “So from our perspective, the whole strategic voting movement was very damaging. And the mixed messaging that Elizabeth sent out was very, very damaging to our campaign.”


David Chernushenko, who came second to Ms. May in the party's 2006 leadership race and has accused Ms. May of selling out the party, disputes Ms. May's assertion that the media are to blame.

“I've actually listened to the tapes. I've watched her and cringed as there have been words, at the end, following a very clear statement, that: ‘You've got to vote Green, except in ridings where I leave it to the voter to do the right thing.' What in flaming heck is that supposed to mean?”
3. The truth-challenged Ms. May asserts that she is so smart, knows it all, Canadians are so stupid:

4. Ms. May is so mendacious that even the National Post, which championed her inclusion in the Leader Debates, is very, very angry:
" ... In the campaign's final days, Ms. May shamelessly shilled for the Liberals, pleading with voters to cast ballots for Mr. Dion's party if that would stop the Conservatives from being re-elected. She turned her party into a false front for a competitor, in other words. It was a disgraceful move, one that made fools of all those (such as this editorial board) who argued she should be admitted to the televised debates ...".
5. Continuing on Ms. May's stellar performance as a shill for the Liberals:

(First comment here)
"I was at Leadership and was told by many Greens that if we picked Dion they'll support us next time because his cause was the same as the Green cause. Thanks for nothing assholes."
6. And, finally, there's the financial hole that Ms. May and her cabal have left the GPC with, in order to promote her personal hate-on:
"The Green Party ran a $4-million campaign and nearly half of that was borrowed money.

Ms. May said her goal is to get her party out of debt before Christmas so that Greens can start raising money for the next campaign, which she predicted will not be too far off."
Ms. May must have great difficulty balancing her own chequebook. The $1.95/vote/year allotment from the Green's election performance will likely yield about $1.8 million/year to help retire the debt and replenish coffers ... if no money is allocated to running the organization during that period. And if Ms. May believes another election is just around the corner, then she's dangerously delusional. More likely it's just misdirection and hoping that members will focus on her latest and greatest contrived threat, while ignoring her on shabby and unworthy role in the 2008 election debacle.

So What Can Greens Do?

If you don't think that Ms. May is a serious problem for the GPC, or if you disagree with my view then, fine, move along and ignore this blog. That's what is so wonderful about democracy ... you have choices.

But if you are concerned like I am with Ms. May's disastrous "Not A Leader" performance and adoration of everything Stephane Dion-ish and Liberal, and believe that a Leadership Review of her performance and actions is required like every other party does, then what you need to do is send off a petition to party headquarters requesting an "Other General Meeting" (i.e., a special general meeting) to consider this issue.

Because the GPC's constitution really has no other mechanism to conduct a leadership review.

Hmmm. Wonder why!

Calling All Canadian Greens ...

Yes, I realize that Elizabeth May is probably entirely focused on getting a Senate seat now, having shilled so well for the LPC during the last election, but here's some question for her and her crew while she's waiting for her Coalition gravy train to arrive:
  1. Who authorized Ms. May to enter into an agreement with the Liberal Party and/or its (then) leader, Stephane Dion, concerning "cooperation" during the 2008 election, and based on what analysis/proposal?

  2. Where is this agreement, what is its full content, and when will it be made available to the membership for approval/rejection?

  3. Who authorized Ms. May to shill for the Liberal Party in the final days of the 2008 campaign (the infamous "Stop Harper" musings, thinly disguised), and in her latest press pronouncement concerning a "coalition" with one or more other Canadian polical parties?

  4. Why was $4 million ($2 million borrowed) apparently spent to fund a 2008 election campaign that, in the end, amounted to no more than Ms. May shilling votes for the Liberal Party, rather than explaining the Green Platform to Canadian voters and making the GPC a viable political alternative?
Since these shoddy, self-centred tactics of the incompetent May cost the party $1.95/vote, and a reduced share of votes, and some candidates to lose their deposits unnecessarily, and to be perceived by the public and the media as "total kooks and idiots", will these questions ever be answered by executive (Federal Council)?

More importantly, when will the Executive of the Green Party demand that May be forced to defend her deplorable actions in front of a Leadership Review? Or is it time to throw these mismanagers out too?

One could conclude that the Greens have possibly been dealt a fatal blow by May's ill-advised machinations. If so, I call on all Green to get rid of the rot that has weakened their party, and to see what can be done to restore the party to favour again.

Dec 11, 2008

Depressing Separatistes

I just came across an amusing post here, titled "How to Depress a Quebecois Reporter". Most recommended.

As a matter of fact, clicking on the "Archives" link on the left-hand side of that blog will reveal a number of editorials of good sense and perspective.

Dec 9, 2008

How Many Objectives Has The Coalition Achieved?

  1. Has it proposed ANY solutions for solving Canada's reputed economic woes, which was supposedly THE REASON (not the $1.95 elimination, no, never!) for the coalition's existence? Answer bonus: Should Canada/government continue to wait for US/Obama thrusts/impacts to become clearer, or whether Canada with the strongest economy of the G8 should run immediately huge deficits so that we can be seen "doing something", but accomplishing little ... other than making a lot of unionists happy to see Other People's Money coming their way)?

  2. Reducing further any residual value in the "Liberal brand" after the last election? Parameters: continued infighting, distressed members, laughable reaction of the media to the sordid soap opera, current polls, two-faced democracy utterances, accomplished zilch since 2006 to reform the party, etc.

  3. Convincing Canadians that it's democratic for a coalition, with 0% of the votes in the last election, to take down a duly-elected government for selfish self-interests, if not a long-term raid on the public treasury? Answer bonus: How is 38% of the vote for the CPC in 2008 any different than 38% for the Liberals when Chretien won a majority?

  4. "Uniting the Left" by destroying the Liberal party or, alternatively, using a mole to create conditions to merge the Liberal party into a grand party of the Socialist Left (with the Greens folded in or neutered as an added bonus)?

  5. Enhancing the stature of the New Democratic Party, and its chief used-car salesman, Red Jack? Answer bonus: How does $50 billion in tax increases to all businesses in Canada (who employ us, BTW), less $30 billion in new free-for-all spending proposed by the coalition, for a net $20 billion in tax increases, amount to a "stimulus package"?

  6. Regaining control of the Golden Trough in Ottawa?

  7. Putting the government (CPC) on the ropes, and taking it down?

  8. Convincing Canadians that the Bloc/Separatistes are a fine bunch of fellows who wouldn't have effective control over the coalition? Or that it "wouldn't really cost too much to the Canadian taxpayer to keep the Bloc onside to ensure the survival of the coalition, year after year?

  9. Destroying the credibility and/or standing of Stephen Harper and his Conservatives in the public consciousness? Answer bonus: If the government is taken down in the end of January 09 and an election called, how many seats north of a majority will the CPC receive?

  10. How brilliant was it for Stephen Harper to use the $1.95 elimination and public service "share the pain of Canadians" announcement to smoke out the deep-running unholy coalition for all Canadians to see, smell, and reject whole-heartedly? Answer bonus: Should all the so-called pundits and "informed" columnists that declared this tactic to be a "gaffe/horrible mistake" be forced to publicly eat their words, or just be forced to resign from their publications? Grand answer bonus: How does Canada get the media off it's lazy, slanted butts and back into reporting News (not opinion or the latest party PR release), and delving into (for example) how this banana republic conspiracy happened?

  11. Extra Bonus Question: Is the coalition with its sordid collection of self-interests, e.g., trade and public sector unionists, child care advocacy groups, Kelowna handout addicts, climate change voodoo rip-off artists, soon-to-be-enriched carbon tax merchants, lobbyists, etc., well and truly dead now, or will this slimy, greedy bunch of parasites emerge from their holes again in another attempt to subvert democracy under the guise of "saving Canada"?


Less than two weeks into the Three Stooges circus show, instigators of the most traitorous act in Canadian political history appear to be slithering into their underground holes, hopefully for good, although that can't be certain.

If Bob Rae gives up on his leadership bid this afternoon, the battle for control of the Liberal party by the coalition, and for the party's ideological direction (if not survival) will be over. For the time being. Unfortunately, it is too late for the Green party. Or is it?

This slimy coalition did not mysteriously come together and climb out of its hole around December 1st. The genesis of the attempt to take over the government of Canada started much, much earlier. Not long after Paul Martin and his Liberals were defeated in the 2006 election, a secret meeting took place. The purpose of the meeting was simple and singular. How to remove the Conservatives from power at the earliest opportunity, before their brand and programs "contaminated" the minds of Canadians against tax-and-spend (your money) policies of the other parties.

After all, at stake were increased billions in funding for so-called social programs, all to be administered by more (unionized) civil servants, and delivered by the (unionized) public sector across Canada, and dispensed from the public purse by the ruling party. Adscam would be a drop in the bucket in comparison to this spending strategy.

Also at stake were untold billions to spend in pursuit of a newly created problem/myth, called Global Warming, now called Climate Change because it became apparent that the planet was cooling, not getting warmer. And who could argue with the concept of Climate Change? The climate is always changing. And funds for that boondoggle would almost exclusively flow to coalition-friendly environmentalists, lobbyists and the public sector too. In general, a ramp-up in social engineering and programs, with the taxpayer on the hook as usual. And don't forget Kelowna with its $5 billion pledge in (unaccountable) funds and other boondoggles. After all, it was reasoned, the Group's values are Canadian values! Sound familiar?

One of the issues discussed was the role that the Greens always played in siphoning off votes that were perceived as rightfully belonging to more mainstream left of centre parties. That small problem, it was decided, would be easy to address. The Greens would be the beneficiary of a gift from the group --- a new leader. And so it came to pass that a long time political activist and lobbyist, a former mover and shaker in the union-supported Think Twice (self-interest) coalition, became the new leader of the Green party. Her "anything but Harper" advice to Greens might have worked very well for the coalition in the 2008 election, but for that dratted media who kept questioning how a stance like that would help the Green Party. But I digress.

Primary discussion amongst the group was focused on how to coalesce the left wing parties into a single force to take down Harper and the Conservatives. One of the threads was along the lines that if the Liberals could move a bit to the left, and the NDP to the right ... towards each other, then the genesis of a solution could be found, since the Green party would move any direction it was told. Wouldn't it be nice, they mused, if a champion of this cause were to become leader of the Liberal party at the convention. Cue the inevitable mole-in-waiting, a 50-50 favourite --- good odds it was thought. Cut to the convention, where the unthinkable occurred. Dion was elected leader.

No matter. Within months of Dion assuming the throne, the group knew for sure that Dion controlled neither the party nor its direction, and never would. So the group laid the groundwork for taking down the leader and, as a by-product, severely crippling the Liberal brand. So much easier that way to accommodate assimilation, they chuckled. And so the Liberal party suffered its worst defeat since the 1800's. Everthing was going to plan, they marvelled. Even the Bloc had been brought onside, and was ready to join everyone at the soon-to-be golden trough of power and money.

Except Harper and his crew had been monitoring this conspiracy from afar. Deciding that it was time to unmask the cabal, Harper announced the government's intention to eliminate Elections Canada ($1.95/vote/year) funding of political parties and, for good measure, a few "share the pain" changes in public service salaries. And so the conspiracy was smoked out into public view, earlier than they had wanted, for they had intended to spring their takeover of government and the treasury of golden geese at the very last moment --- when Harper wouldn't have time to react.

The principals in this conspiracy weren't surprised at the vehement public reaction against the Three Stooges Coalition. That's why they had kept it running deep and silently for so long. After all, they reasoned, what could Canadians do when presented with a successful coup. Uprisings aren't in Canadian veins, they knew. Or hoped.

So, with Plan "A" (The Three Stooges) seemingly on the rocks, and with quick polls showing that an early election might not be a great idea from their point of view, the group put Plan "B" into effect. Lie, confuse the public, and sell the coalition. Concurrently, position a former (and disastrous) NDP premier as the greatest man on earth to lead the Liberal party out of its doldrums. Into the waiting jaws of the Borg. Resistance is futile --- you will be assimilated, with the active assistance of insiders.

And that is where this fairy tale pauses. And looks anxiously to how the Liberal Party extricates itself from this trap. For now is the time to barricade the doors and windows, and shut down the electricity that powers this conspiracy. Put differently, choose wisely who you select to lead you after Dion departs this week, and be sure that he or she is not part of the conspiracy.

It's strange that the media has not dug into the genesis of the coalition, and exposed its slimy characters and underpinnings. Shall we put this down to ever-increasing laziness of the mainstream media to wander far from receiving press releases from parties and candidates, rather than engaging in true investigative journalism? No wonder readership is declining at an alarming rate. No one trust the media any more to give them the true story, or value-added.

Oh, is that another press release/rumour/tidbit from the XYZ party in my in-basket? Let's see how I can put my own "analytical" stamp on this piece of BS, and release it as breaking news.

Moral of this fable? If you choose to sleep with a goat, at least one of you is going to be unhappy in the morning.

End of Fiction: Canadian Political Fables

Oh, THAT Economic Crisis?

Has anyone noticed that, with all the federal Liberals firmly gazing at their navels in the self-interest circus called the "Leadership Crisis", that not one second has been devoted to "fixing" the economy by these twits or its slimy coalition partners?

After all, the economy WAS the reason for the Unholy Coalition, wasn't it?

Returning to Blog Again

Now that I have some more time, especially since the slimy coalition of self-interests has surfaced and slithered around, it's time to get back to blogging!