Political Soap Opera

If Canadians ever decide to bring to television a new political soap opera, they need look no further than what is currently being aired. We could give it a clever title, like "As The Stomach Turns" or something similar. The Maxime Bernier - Julie Couillard affair is just the ticket for this show. Especially with headlines like these: Majority want RCMP to investigate: poll Bikers weighed killing Couillard as suspected police informant A peek inside the shadowy life of the Mata Hari of the 450 Grits fear Bernier probe is inside job The only one who I think actually makes any sense of this is Rex Murphy. Let's be honest here. For over a decade, the Liberal-dominated government was able to screw 30 million Canadians. Maxime was only trying to screw one. (HT to Nationalnewswatch for the headlines)

Erections Canada

The title's not a misprint. It's what I think Elections Canada should be renamed, considering their tactics regarding the bullet-proof vest clad storming of Conservative HQ by the RCMP last week. I think John Robson makes the point far better than I could though; at least he's done his homework: In the battle pitting the federal Conservatives against Elections Canada, the opposition and the press, a typical Ottawa competition to see who can perform most discreditably, my money was on the Tories. Until I made a crucial blunder: I did research. John goes on to say "At this point I foolishly read what I hope were all the relevant sections of the 500-plus page Canada Elections Act. Here, in unavoidable legalese, is what I found. The Act does set separate spending limits for registered parties (clause 422.1) and for their candidates (clauses 440 and 441). But Clause 422 (2) lets parties give money to local candidates and not count it as "an election expense..." So the key question is whether those candidates can spend that or any other money, up to their local limit, on what is essentially national advertising. And the crucial Clause 407 (1) defines an "election expense" as "any cost incurred, or non-monetary contribution received, by a registered party or a candidate, to the extent that the property or service for which the cost was incurred, or the nonmonetary contribution received, is used to directly promote or oppose a registered party, its leader or a candidate during an election period." What in there says local spending must happen locally or concern local issues? I see nothing." For a guy who admitedly had a preconceived notion (that the Tories were guilty) to come away from this thinking that they are on the right side of this issue leaves me questioning the true motives of Elections Canada. If they continue to act like a bunch of big dicks, then perhaps they deserve the title given at the top of this post.

Dion: What The Media Pundits Have Failed To Recognize

I haven't had much to say lately that hasn't been better said elsewhere. If you're reading this, you may think "You still don't. Shut up!" From National Newswatch, I caught the headlines of two interesting opinions regarding the plight of Stephane Dion. The first is from L Ian MacDonald: The party is broke in Quebec. There's no plan for a campaign. The infighting among organizers is ugly, like Tories in the bad old days. And the Liberals are completely out of the game in the 50 Quebec seats outside Montreal. The second is from Don Martin: Mr. Dion's new more asser tive-looking glasses hardly overcome an ivory tower tan and passive demeanor, which create the impression of someone who, like me, was the favourite wedgie target for elementary school bullies. As one party insider noted hopefully when asked for image advice: "Mr. Dion is a great fly fisher, so maybe we could do more photo-ops in a boat?" Um, Stockwell Day on a jet ski ring any bells? The truth is far more foreboding for Mr. Dion. It's one of those things that probably aren't recognizable from ninety eight percent of the electorate: only intelligent people are capable of recognizing intelligence in others. If you think about the above sentence, you'll arrive at the conlusion that both Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion are at a level of intelligence that most people simply can't recognize. Sure, you could easily spot a person with an IQ of 80 after a brief discussion if you were to meet them on the street. What if you had met Bill Gates or Thomas Edison on the street? Both Stephane Dion and Stephen Harper are men that have that level of intelligence. The unfortunate aspect of genius is that it can either be a genius for everything, or it can be a genius in certain categories. Until Stephane Dion can develop a genius for political strategy, he is doomed to remain where he belongs. Cowboy vests and goofy glasses won't be the deciding factor in an election. Public perception of the man behind them will be.