kimmy

Scratch that. We have a winner. -k

This is quite excellent. Without debating the pros or cons of the opinion expressed, this is certainly the best of these parodies I have seen so far, and would probably make the best TV commercial. -k

I agree somewhat, and I expressed my own opinion on why this might be so in this message. To summarize, I believe that the media is hungry for news, and pursues what they sense is vulnerable prey. In this election that has been the Liberals, previously it has been the Conservatives. The Liberals have produced badly-phrased press releases, poorly-thought out policy announcements (dropping the NWS Clause bomb during the debate grabbed headlines, but not in the way Martin might have hoped...), the Income Trust investigation, the disastrous ad that got pulled. And now the inept campaign itself is newsworthy, as juicy gossip and speculation about backroom warfare and a not-so secret race to succeed Martin begins to make news too. By contrast, the Conservatives have done very little to pique the same sort of interest, with the goofy looking guy being charged with smuggling booze and a car being the only real misstep. Other than that, we've seen ads that were either predictable (Gomery, etc) or boring (Harper answering softball questions from a fake host on a fake talk show, etc) and a rather by the book approach to releasing policy announcements. A potential newsmaker-- same sex marriage-- was dealt with early on in what at the time seemed like a blunder, but has in fact worked out well for the Conservatives by getting it out of the way early and eliminating its news value now. So, if you're a news editor, you cover all the stories, of course. But which one are you going to lead off with? Which one have you got a sense is going to keep the viewers on you station, and which one is going to have them reaching for their remotes? When your commentators and analysts come on, which is the topic that they just can't wait to talk about? If you're a columnist, what topic are you more likely to devote your precious 11"x2" of space to? I dispute 2 of your premises, highlighted above. First off, I don't think the media has ever said that sponsorship would sink the Liberals. They've predicted at times that testimony coming out of the Inquiry would badly hurt the Liberals at the polls, and it did but only briefly. The media for the most part has been critical of Harper's failure to turn sponsorship and the Gomery inquiry into anything more than short-lived gains in the polls. As summer arrived and the Liberals regained their comfortable lead in the polls, the conventional wisdom was *not* that sponsorship would sink the Liberals, it was that Canadians would not reject the Liberals if Harper was the only alternative. As summer became fall, the media view was *not* that sponsorship would sink the Liberals, it was that sponsorship was becoming a dead issue to most voters, and that Harper had missed his opportunity. As fall became winter, the prevailing mood in the media was that an opposition move to force a winter election would backfire as voters would punish the opposition for an early election. So overall I think it is somewhat silly to claim the media wants to see Harper win to prove themselves right. If anything, a Harper win would prove much of the media wrong in their belief that Canadians would never accept Harper as PM. I think it's revisionism to say that the media has been predicting sponsorship would sink the Liberals. I think prevailing wisdom in the media was that sponsorship was a golden opportunity that Harper wasted by mishandling it. And secondly, to the belief that news editors have predicted a Conservative win and are tailoring their coverage to fit a perceived appetite for positive coverage of the Conservatives and negative coverage of the Liberals, I disagree on two fronts. I don't think anybody body in the media was confident of a Conservative win prior to the election. Polls prior to the election showed a Liberal win was likely, and it is only in the past week or so have all the pollsters come to agree that the Conservatives are solidly in front. And, I don't think news editors believe that the public has an appetite for positive coverage of one party or negative coverage of the other. I think that news editors believe that the public has an appetite for scandal, for flashy headlines, for cutting soundbites... basically, for the sort of stuff that the Liberals have provided plenty of during this campaign. -k

give it up, Rocket. That game has already been played, and won decisively. -k

You know, that really was Campaignful. -k

I'm actually kind of looking forward to Rick Mercer's show next week. I'm not a Mercer fan, but with so much material to work with this week, his next show ought to be epic. -k

They could cross a pig with soy-beans to make a giant chia-pet! Rather than needing to be fed, they'd probably just graze on each other! Just imagining kimmy-klones gives me goosebumps. But that's probably pretty dangerous. The world shouldn't have more than one or maybe 2 of me. -k {tofu-flavored bacon? or bacon-flavored tofu?}

I think we saw some of the same kind of thinking here, a few weeks before the call of the election. Former forum member "ScottBrison" was enthusiastically trumpetting the latest poll results showing the Liberals at 38%, "majority territory!" he claimed (though, I believe with more exclamation marks...) based on the logic that Chretien had once won a majority with 38% of the vote. But that ignores the fractured nature of our electoral map and the strange way in which votes are distributed. A widespread generalized support is virtually worthless when stacked up against strongly concentrated regional factors, and that is what we have everywhere in this country. It would be theoretically possible for a party to win the popular vote handily without winning a single seat in parliament. In the Conservatives' case, a fair amount of their rise in popular support has been in Quebec ridings outside of Montreal, and it's likely that the Conservatives won't win a single seat from any of that support. A considerable amount of the Conservatives' gain in the polls has also likely come in the Greater Vancouver Area and "the 905" in ridings that will likely be won by Liberal or NDP candidates regardless. I think a fair chunk of the Conservatives' gain in the polls could be likened to a hypothetical Liberal rise in Alberta: it doesn't matter if the Liberals poll 30% in Alberta or just 20% ...it's not going to translate into seats. I think Conservatives in Quebec and certain metro areas will face the same fate. The polls are interesting at identifying trends, but as a means of projecting a seat count, they're useless. I don't blame "ScottBrison" for not knowing better, but Pollsters speculating about a majority based on their latest poll don't have an excuse: they ought to know better. I suspect they probably attempt to speculate how their poll will translate into seats to try to impart some significance to their research. -k

Indeed. There's been considerable discussion of this already. Click here for other peoples' thoughts. -k {friendly tour guide. }

I attempted to read that, there, but the server told me I was unable to do so. Can you recheck the link? Either you've made an error, or the site is swamped, or the story has been hastily retracted, or something. -kimmy {"need a darn Trackback ID"? I take it the server is based in Saskatoon?}

There are some legitimate issues that are worth discussing in the proposal, some of which you've articulated, some of which were articulated by Joe Granatstein in the Toronto Star article that Eureka referenced, and some of which the Liberals themselves have belatedly articulated in wake of the controversy over the ad. I think probably the arguments could probably be summarized under 2 headings: purpose/role confusion, and cost/benefit ratio. Congratulations to yourself, and to Eureka, the Star, Joe Granatstein, and even the Liberals, for attempting some real discussion of the issue. Something I wanted to take issue, though, is the suggestion that "the message got lost". I think the ad conveys the message it was intended to convey: the person who conceived the ad either believes soldiers in cities is a sinister idea, or hopes that voters will believe it is. "Soldiers with guns. In cities. In Canada." I mean, for me the ad brought to mind Tienamen Square. For my parents, martial law in Poland was what they mentioned. Mike Duffy said Pinochet. Virtually everyone I know in person or online who has seen the ad had the same sort of reaction, and it's hard to believe that experienced professional ad-men created such a universal reaction by accident. No, I just cannot accept the excuse that they've conveyed a message here that was different from what they intended. I believe the ad conveys exactly what it was intended to convey, and I believe that it was the intent and the idea behind the ad that was either malicious or just poorly thought through. -k

But these are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Provinces pay for them, yet depend on the federal government for the funding due to federal powers of taxation. The biggest cuts in our history were implimented by provincial governments whose hands had been forced by finance minister Martin's measures. Paul Martin's efforts on the "national programs" front have hardly been confidence-inspiring. On healthcare we saw his "national program" consisted of little more than getting the premiers together to shake down the government for cash that was given out with virtually no strings attached anyway. On daycare we've seen Ken Dryden make meet individually with a couple of his provincial counterparts to fork over cash with again no guarantee of any results. To me it seems as though the only difference between what you say Harper plans to do and what Martin has already done is that Martin's process involves a photo-op and an adversarial process where the premiers have to shake down the feds for more cash before they can go impliment their own policies in areas of provincial jurisdiction. -k

It is *not* true that the idea is absurd on the face of it. The reason it might not be practical is *not* obvious to the casual observer. Your argument, and the discussion, and the forum, would have been much better served by pointing to the reason rather than attacking people. This has hardly been a one-way street. I could point you to a number of threads and posts and members who've degenerated the level of discussion here with ludicrous attacks on Harper, and you're not exactly doing much to raise the level of discourse yourself. -k

It isn't over yet. Dating back to the last election, it seems like every time the Conservatives have edged in front there's a bounce-back effect as voters considering changing from Liberal to Conservative have second thoughts when polls show the Conservatives are out in front. (I think "soft support" is the phrase for this.) With all the polls now showing the Conservatives with a big lead, and voters now being faced with the possibility that the Conservatives will form a government (with some pollsters even musing about the "M" word.) Within 11 days we will see how much of the Conservatives' lead comes from "soft support", and how much of it is real and solid. I don't think the Conservatives will still have a 10 or 11% lead when all the votes are counted. I think some of the soft support will chicken out. I think the attack ads will have some impact as well. I think that by election day the polls will show things are a lot closer than they look right now. But I also think that there's a threshold that's been passed. The polls have shown the Conservatives well ahead for a while now, and the expected bounce-back has not materialized yet. And the Liberals campaign seems to be taking on the same kind of aura that one sees in the movie industry around a box-office flop. In the movie business, the critics can sense when a movie is going to be a dud: they can tell by how the movie studio promotes the film. They recognize it by half-hearted press kits and promotion done on the cheap, they recognize it by vague or misleading trailers or ads, they recognize it by release dates that get rescheduled to less competitive times, or unexpected delays, or staff turnover, or refusal to have advance screenings, or a myriad of other things that tip off the fact that the studio has no confidence in its own product. And from the way the journalists are talking about the Liberals, you get the sense that they feel the same sort of vibe coming from the Liberal campaign right now. On CTV yesterday, they interviewed an "embedded journalist" ( ) who was with the Liberal campaign team. He gave the same sort of impression about the Liberal staff... poor morale, few smiles... they've lost confidence in their own product. He said that when he asked when the Notwithstanding Clause campaign pledge had been crafted, the Liberal staffer "told me, 'some time ago,' and when I asked if he could be more specific, he said 'Some Time Ago.' And we just kind of looked at each other. I left it at that." -k

(you honestly don't understand why people have become hostile toward you, or why nobody takes you seriously when you claim you're the least partisan person on the forum, do you...) Let us look at this instead: I assume this article is what you're referring to. This is good: some reasoned criticism of the plan from somebody who is apparently knowledgeable on the subject. He contends the units are too small to be useful and that the resources could better be spent on bolstering the reserves. Superb! Wouldn't we have all been better served if you had led with that instead of blathering about braying donkeys? Wouldn't the Liberals had been better off if they'd challenged the specifics of Harper's ideas instead of hatching a half-baked scheme to try to make it sound like Harper was declaring Martial Law on urban voters? -k

That's odd. I've read that during Gulf War v1.0 the F-18s established flight-time to maintenance records that are unmatched in military aviation history. I have a hunch here that the issue here is not the F18s themselves, but simply the fact that jet fighters-- any make or model in the world-- require a lot of maintenance. Engineers and mechanics, specialized equipment and facilities, spare parts and components. And that's without even getting them off the ground. We'd also have to arrange for tons of fuel, and adequate takeoff and landing facilities, and ordinance. I think that the logicistics and costs of all of this is highly significant whether we're sending 6 planes or 60. If our allies-- the Americans are still our allies-- are already performing the logistics of keeping planes in the air in Afghanistan (or from Turkey or wherever it is that they're set up) then duplicating their efforts seems like a costly and unnecessary exercise. Why does that make sense? The military has been performing these sorts of activities for us, and if you're wondering why, I would think that in large measure it would have to do with already having the right kind of equipment (transports, helicopters, reconnaissance planes, and so on) and full-time employees who are trained in the use of this equipment. There's the idea that requirements are in many cases similar. Both have the requirement to be able to quickly deploy to some possibly remote location and set up operations. Military engineering capabilities-- construction of roads, bridges, communications facilities, whatever, on the fly-- are capabilities that are needed as much in a military situation as in a disaster relief situation. And there's some overlap in the actual duties. Mobile medical capabilities, for instance. Civil unrest can certainly accompany natural disasters, and the ability to maintain law and order could certainly be an important part of an emergency response. Wouldn't what you're suggesting just result in a duplicate bureaucracy, duplication of equipment, duplication of employees, duplication of costs and effort? It seems to me that it would be more sensible to just accept that the duties of our armed forces have expanded far beyond the traditional notion of killing people and blowing stuff up. Hey, you never know. Maybe a shiny new strategic transport would help Canada finally close the deal with Turks and Caicos, or hook up with a hot young latino republic. In all seriousness, we as Canadians have collectively put a high value on the work we do in the international community, haven't we? It seems to me that peacekeeping is always one of the first things people mention when you ask them why they're proud Canadians. If that's the case, it seems to me that it's important to actually be able to meet the commitments we make, whether to our allies, or to the UN, or just to our generalized belief in the importance of providing humanitarian assistance. We need to either have the equipment and personnel to do those things, or we need to reassess our belief about how we relate to the world community. -k

Wait, you don't mean... Save me, Jeebus... -k

Are you really that in favour of objectivity? Were you saying that in 2000 when the wolfpack descended on Stock Day? Or 2004 when they attacked Harper? Interesting to hear Liberals whining about the media. You know what, guys? I think the effect we're seeing is that the media is not necessarily out to "get" one party or the other... just as long as they can "get" somebody. I think this is something Sparhawk articulated months back when we were discussing media bias in wake of the stories circulating about staff turnover in the Conservatives' backroom. How often have you heard the phrase "they smell blood"? It's a phrase that used by sports broadcasters a lot, when one team is reeling, discombobulated, panicking, and making mistakes, and their opponent senses opportunity on every play. Or when a boxer can barely defend himself and his opponent senses the chance to land the knockout punch is just moments away. The phrase, of course, refers to hunters and prey: a wolfpack or school of pirhanas or sharks, senses a wounded and vulnerable target and closes in for the kill. And given the way the metaphor is used in sports, you might think the Liberals are the reeling boxer or the football team in total disarray, and the Conservatives are the opponent ready to take advantage. But I think it's actually the media that are the school of pirhanas, and the Liberals are thrashing around in the water, and the Conservatives are cautiously on the shore relieved that it's not them feeding the pirhanas this time. The media? They're hungry and they just want to kill something. In previous elections, reporters sensed that it was the Conservatives (or their predecessors) that were going to yield a big story. Ask the right question, press the right button, and you might get a scoop. This time around, reporters sense that from the Liberals. The Liberals have provided such sexy, gossipy, headline grabby topics to talk about. They're talking about moles within their ranks, and secret backroom wars between different factions. They've made some spectacular blunders. Meanwhile, the Conservatives have runn a safe, competent, mature campaign. Given the situation, how could it be a surprise that the Q&A session after Harper's speech was calm, easygoing, and relaxed, while the Q&A after Martin's speech was like a piece of meat being thrown into the hyena cage at the zoo? John Duffy was the Liberal strategist who had his head torn off by Mike Duffy on live TV on Tuesday. John was upset that Mike wanted to talk about the bundled ad, instead of "hidden agenda" stuff. Well guess what, John? The "hidden agenda" talk is simply not very interesting to the news media anymore, as they've been covering that talk for years, and Canadians have been hearing that talk for years, and it's simply lost it's impact. Is the media bias because it has given more press to the ad that got pulled than the ads the Liberals are taking to air? The Liberals can spend their money and put whichever ads they want on the air, but that in itself isn't news. "Party launches attack ads!" is mildly newsworthy, but it happens all the time. But "Party pulls spectacularly dumb ad!" is also pretty newsworthy. The "Soldiers. In Our Cities. With Guns" ad is not just newsworthy, it's historically significant: it's being mentioned alongside of some of the most catastrophic blunders in recent Canadian history-- the 1993 ad with Chretien's mangled face, and the 1997 Reform ad complaining about Quebec Prime Ministers. How could it not be news when a party produces a brain-fart of such whithering stench that it smells from coast to coast? Of course right now the media is pursuing the Liberals like a pack of starving pirhanas. They're hungry for scoops. The Conservatives haven't dished out any, but the Liberals keep coming out with one after another. The media smells blood coming from the Liberals this time. -k

I'm not sure a Conservative majority is likely under any circumstances... even in the darkest days of the Gomery Inquiry we says that the Liberals retained the support of around 30% of Canadians, and I'd assumed this was pretty much "rock bottom" for the Liberals. Even though they've run a historically inept campaign, I somehow can't convince myself that they'll be any lower on Jan 23 than they were back in April. A man after my heart! I completely agree that the aftermath of the Liberal implosion is going to be fascinating to watch. -k

Indeed. I'm not as convinced as others that Harper was ever as "neocon" as his detractors conted, but aside from that, I agree with what you're saying. A Conservative win would almost certainly be a minority government, which means that Harper would be unable to pass any particularly radical legislation in any case, and also that Harper would have to go back before the voters sooner rather than later anyway. Why do people assume he would want to commit political suicide by contradicting his election promises? Harper does not to condemn his party to another 13 years on the scrap-heap of history. I missed Martin's big speech that supposedly has Harper on the ropes. I did catch some of Martin responses to questions afterwards, though. He looked like a frightened, desperate man. A reporter asked him whether his pledge to ditch tne NWS clause would render the government unable to act to protect public healthcare from a Supreme Court ruling, and Martin was like a deer caught in the headlights. He spent more time stammering, stuttering, and saying "uh" than actually answering the question, and once he did respond, he was throwing around the same catch-phrases ("cherry-pick rights", etc) and completely failed to address the actual question. It had to have added to the speculation that this idea was something that the Liberals, or Martin himself, thought up on the spur of the moment. Kinsella, on CTV this afternoon, said that the Liberals had to give out free tickets and call supporters over from Queen's Park to get a respectable turnout for Martin's speech. I also saw Harper, on CPAC, responding to reporter questions in both languages in New Brunswick. In sharp contrast to Martin, Harper seemed relaxed and casual with the reporters. Even in responding to questions about the attack-ads and the old quotes being used against him, Harper seemed completely comfortable and at home, and the difference between Harper now versus the Harper that's had such a bristly relationship with the media was striking. Watching Harper and Martin both interacting with the press within a few minutes of each other, the difference was night and day and it seems very clear which one of the men is the one on the ropes. -k

That's outstanding. Deny? No, I don't think the Conservatives have denied the plan, which was announced at a press conference. What they, and pretty much everybody except the Rabble/Babble crowd, find offensive was the effort to spin it as some sort of police-state martial law scenario. The Liberals themselves belatedly realized what a bad idea that was... unfortunately for them, they'd already handed out the tapes to media outlets by that time. -kimmy {soldiers... with guns... are stationed a short drive from me right now... }

One thing to consider is that people who don't bother to vote are probably people who haven't bothered to pay much attention to the issues anyway. Perhaps it is just as well that these people don't bother to vote. I would imagine that in a close election, a voter who made every effort to research the issues would be annoyed to find his vote had been nullified by a voter who made his decision by picking the funniest name or some other completely random choice. However, I think that if voting was made mandatory, an "undecided" option would be a good thing. (or, in many cases, a "don't care" or "all of these candidates are assholes!" option might be closer to the feelings of many "undecided" voters. ) -k

I am starting to wonder if the Liberal stratigists figure that they are probably going to lose so they decided to lose so badly that Harper gets a majority. That way Harper won't have to cut deals with the BQ to stay in power and the Liberals can spend the next 4 years getting ready for the next election. While the "military presence" ad was obviously a brain-fart of epic proportions, I don't know how much of harm it'll cause them. We internet geeks might be the only ones who see the pulled ad, and I don't know that we make up that big a portion of voters. (and, to be fair to the Liberals, I was scanning Rabble/Babble one day and came across many Canadians who also believe that Harper has Pinochet-like intentions for his armies near cities plan. ) And I also wouldn't write off the eleven remaining attack-ads just yet either. They do push at buttons that have worked well for the Liberals in the past. Have they gone to the well once too often? Will this just increase the air of desperation surrounding the Liberals? Or will voters respond the way they have in the past to this sort of message? Warren Kinsella, who has been relentlessly negative towards everything Team Martin has done so far, thinks the ads are quite good. I won't be ready to conclude that these ads have failed until the election is actually over. -k

CTV also had an interesting blow-up between Mike Duffy and Liberal mouthpiece John Duffy over the ad. I didn't see it at the time, but have now watched it through the marvel of the internet and video capture technology. (I've saved the clip, and am hosting it on rapidshare as I write this.) Canoe.ca has an article on the exchange: http://money.canoe.ca/News/Other/2006/01/10/1388112-cp.html A videocapture of the clip was made by "proudtobecanadian.ca" and originally posted at their website. -k addendum: I've hosted the file at Rapidshare at the link below, if you're interested in seeing it but don't feel like searching through other forums to find it. http://rapidshare.de/files/10825833/ProudT...nds_up.wmv.html Click the above link, scroll down and select "Free" download.

That's an interesting analogy. Does the Quebec audience see Martin, Harper, and Layton as "clones" and Duceppe as "their guy"? Overall, how do you feel Harper handled being a target in the french debate, whereas in previous french debates he's been an afterthought? Do you feel Harper's performance will hurt or help the Conservatives' apparent growth in Quebec support, or no effect? I'd have liked to have watched, but my french is so poor that about all I can understand is the gist of a hockey-broadcast or one of those adult movies that TQS Hull used to air on Saturday night. -k addendum: I enjoyed Coyne's blow by blow, but Kinsella's recap of the English debate had me laughing out loud. 9:12 - Dithers™ reminds everyone he was Finance Minister, reminding everyone how the Peter Principle® applies to him. 9:40 - Steve Paikin would be a serious contender for Prime Minister, I believe, were it not for the fact that he resembles a human-sized Q-Tip. addendum addendum: (Steve Paikin? for some reason I thought that the moderator was one of those fruits from Kids In The Hall. go figure. -k)