Turner Turned-Over?

Garth Turner quits Liberal party

the dark clouds swirling around Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff have gotten darker still, as Garth Turner has decided not to run for the party.

Tired of waiting for Ignatieff to finally allow a nomination meeting in the riding of Dufferin-Calderon (his new riding of choice since being defeated by Lisa Raitt in Halton), Turner has decided to quit as a candidate for that riding's nomination.

"In Dufferin-Caledon, I have been the only nominee for MP candidate since August," he wrote in a press release. "I'm interpreting the leader's failure to allow a nomination meeting as a signal my views are unwelcome."

Turner has voiced particular disappointment with Ignatieff's insistence that he wouldn't raise taxes as Prime Minister.

"It's hard to see what the coming election will be about if we're not prepared to discuss the options in the wake of the Harper fiscal disaster," Turner complained. "Economic growth alone won't wipe out an historic debt load or the need for spending cuts and tax hikes."

Moving forward, one may wonder what lies ahead for Turner: whether he plans to quit politics altogether, or simply join another party.

Many Canadians may remember the speculation that Turner would join the Green party shortly after his expulsion from the Conservative caucus. If Turner plans to continue his political career, he may not have many other choices.

Turner has burned both of the bridges that could ever lead him back to government -- at least in this lifetime. And while joining the Green party would only serve to confirm him as a consumate politician, with no real principles to ground him, there's no question that Elizabeth May and the Greens would love to have him.

At least it's a more appealling idea -- if no more realistic -- than Turner attempting to join the NDP.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Chucker Canuck - "Iggy Machine Grinds I-dotting, T-crossing Garth Turner"

Democracy Under Fire - "Digital Democracy in Canada Takes a Hit"

Russ Campbell - "No Garth Turner to Kick Around"

Mark Francis - "Often What They Don't Want is What We Need"

So Garth, Could You Take This Up With Your Party?

Turner opposes Harper on Senate appointments, supports Harper on elected Senate

In perhaps the most unshocking turn of events since Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed nine new Senators, former Conservative and Liberal MP Garth Turner announced that he was disappointed in Harper.

More encouraging, however, was the reason why.

"I'm also disappointed in Mr Harper," said Turner, but noted the importance of Senate reform. "I support him on that."

"I think we either need an elected Senate or an abolished Senate," he added.

"Overall, it's a very costly institution that has nothing but a ceremonial role," he continued. "Nobody should be sent to Ottawa who hasn't been sent by the people."

Since he was booted from the Conservative party caucus, very few people should be surprised that Turner is "disappointed" in Stephen Harper. But for Turner to be disappointed in Harper in regard to Senate reform is a welcome change from some of the more blatantly partisan complaints Turner has raised since becoming a Liberal.

Turner's disapproval of Harper's appointmentss unsurprisingly and rightly focused in on Doug Finley.

"He's a political player," Turner said of Finley, whom he also described as "bare-knuckles political operative."

But Turner also noted that the Conservatives most certainly aren't the first party to make such a blatantly partisan appointment to the Senate.

"I know this is not just a Conservative thing," he noted. "Liberals have done it in the past too."

Naturally, however, there is one other forum in which one hopes Turner could take up the cause of Senate reform: namely, with his colleagues in the Liberal Senate caucus.

After all, the House of Commons passed the term limits bill. It's the Liberal Senate Caucus who are holding up the bill, often under the guise of the same specious excuses offered by Stephane Dion.

One more MP who supports Senate reform would be a welcome addition to the Liberal caucus in the minds of many Canadians. It may not even be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that he may be a better alternative to Dufferin-Calderon Conservative MP David Tilson, who offered an unfitting defense of Harper's appointments (even the blatantly partisan ones).

"They're all distinguished canadians," he insisted. "They're all worthy of the job."

As Garth Turner would almost surely remind Tilson, they may not necessarily be any less worthy as many of the appointees who came before them. But that doesn't mean that there weren't many, many better candidates for those jobs.

As Turner would also remind Tilson -- as well as the Premiers of the provinces not currently electing Senators -- the Canadian citizenry may be much better poised to identify those individuals.

Perhaps he could even convince his own party's Senators.

Christine Elliott and the (Alleged) Nadir of Red Toryism

Despite Elliott's leadership setback, red toryism will survive

If politics were merely about being nice, Christine Elliott probably would have won the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership hands-down.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal's endorsement of Elliott reinforces this. Segal has often focused on praising the humanity and civility of political leaders. To Seal, these are important values.

Of course, politics is not merely about being nice. Few Canadians, inside or outside of Ontario, would pretend that former Premier Mike Harris is an implicitly nice individual. Yet his endorsement of now-PC leader Tim Hudak certainly went a long way toward establishing his credentials as a "common sense conservative".

Mike Harris won two majority governments in Ontario. Hugh Segal wound up runner-up to former Prime Minister Joe Clark in the 1998 federal Progressive Conservative leadership contest.

Perhaps the lesson is that perhaps, in politics, nice guys really do finish last -- or at least that in politics, as in life, people who are too nice invariably finish last.

In the wake of Elliott's defeat in the Progressive Conservative leadership contest, many people -- like the Globe and Mail's Adam Radwanski --- are wondering if conservatism in Ontario, formerly a bastion of Canadian red toryism, has irrevocably taken what Brooke Jeffrey once referred to as a hard right turn.

(Jeffrey, for her own part, actually seemed perplexed by her inability to win election by labelling all of her would-be constituents in a riding she was parachuted into as racists, so maybe one should carefully consider the source.)

Hudak's ascension to the leadership of the Ontario Conservative party has many people wondering if perhaps speculation that harder forms of conservatism are needed to prevail in Ontario.

In recent years, the failures of leaders such as John Tory have largely spoken for themselves. There's a real question regarding whether or not red toryism can flourish in Ontario -- or Canada -- any longer, or if it's simply become too "Liberal-lite" to be palatable to conservative voters.

Yet those reputed to be red tories who have gotten closest to the Liberal party have shown their true political colours. In the case of Garth Turner, those colours turned out to be red. In the end however, it turned out that he wasn't a Tory.

When the former Halton MP joined the Liberal party in 2007, then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion crowed that "Tories were becoming Liberals".

Yet, as it turned out, Turner was far from a proper red tory. He lacked that key combination of fiscal conservatism and social principle that has forever properly characterized the red tory. When he finally got his first opportunity to campaign against the Harper Conservatives he chose to embrace divisive fear-based campaigning.

Prior to that, Turner attempted to divide Canadians by attempting to invent a separatist threat in Alberta.

Red toryism has forever held at its core an organic conceptualization of society -- one wherein social tradition is balanced against the public good.

Fear mongering and the creation of artificial -- and largely non-existent -- enemies is as great an insult to the principles of red toryism as one can possibly manage.

Turner had been preceded in joining the Liberal ranks by David Orchard, who had his nomination in a Saskatchewan riding overturned by Dion in favour of a hand-picked candidate who subsequently lost to Conservative Rob Clarke. When Orchard finally got his own turn in 2008, he lost as well -- and lost amidst his own fear-based attempts to campaign against the RCMP.

David Orchard, as many may recall, conceded the federal PC leadership to Peter MacKay only under the condition that MacKay wouldn't discuss unification of that party with the then-Canadian Alliance.

Orchard, for his own part, failed to recognize the value in allowing an organic political bond to develop between Canada's conservatives, and would have rather allowed the Liberal party to govern Canada in perpetuity than be caught dead dealing with the "wrong" conservatives.

If Canadian red toryism has truly reached its nadir it isn't in the defeat of Christine Elliott. Rather, it reached that nadir when those who consider themselves red tories failed to put their political principles ahead of their political vanity.

Whether or not Elliott will turn the tide of this unfortunate trend by working together with her party's new leader, and whether the hard conservatism of Tim Hudak and Mike Harris can lead the Ontario Progressive Conservative party to victory in the next election has yet to be seen.

If Hudak possesses the wisdom to make Elliott a part of his leadership plans for the party, and if Elliott can, in turn, soften the hard conservatism of Hudak and company also has yet to be seen. But it will be interesting to see.

Politics may not necessarily be merely about being nice. But it couldn't hurt to have a nice guy -- or gal -- on side, either.

And They Wonder Why We Don't Trust Them

Liberal MP envokes spectre of NEP, Garth turner feins shock

With Liberal leader Stephane Dion just having finished a tour of the west trying to sell his carbon tax plan, yet another Liberal MP has made that task significantly harder.

First it was Halton MP Garth Turner, who made offensive comments about Quebec separatists and alleged Albertan separatists.

Now, it's Thunder Bay-Rainy River MP Ken Boschoff, who published a statement on his website insisting that the green shift would provide a Liberal opportunity with a tool for further wealth redistribution:

"The Liberal Party’s Green Shift announced on June 19th marked the most aggressive anti-poverty program in 40 years. The ‘shift’ will transfer wealth from rich to poor, from the oil patch to the rest of the country, and from the coffers of big business to the pockets of low-income Canadians."

Not only does Boshcoff insist that the "green shift" plan will do all this, he even has a pretty good idea as to how:

"Roughly $9 billion of the $15.3 billion expected to be collected annually in carbon tax revenues would be returned to Canadians earning less than $40,000 annually. This would be done through a combination of income tax cuts and benefits targeted at children, low wage earners, rural residents, and individuals with disabilities."

All of this with the revenue being transferred from "the oil patch to the rest of the country".

Considering that Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are Canada's leading oil producers, it's hard to interpret their comments as anything other than Liberal party intent to transfer wealth out of these provinces to Ontario and Quebec.

Of course, Garth Turner insists that the "mild-mannered" Boshcoff only wrote what he wrote for political gain:

"Ken Boschoff is a mild and caring guy, as far as I can tell. He’s my colleague from the Thunder Bay area, and an extremely effective communicator in his riding. That may be why, since his chief political opposition there is the NDP, he chose to write a piece the other day stressing the social aspects of the Dion Green Shift.

...

So, yeah, I know what Ken wrote. I also know why, and what he meant. I can also tell everyone reading this that not a single time, not once, has the notion of (a) screwing the West, (b) finding a new NEP, (c) transferring wealth from Big Oil to Toronto, (d) funding lavish new social programs or (e) dreaming up a plan to secure the Eastern vote, been discussed in national Liberal caucus. But I have heard Dion tell a room full of MPs, none of whom were from Alberta, that his plan will help diversify that oil-dependent economy and lead to a better life for every person living there."

But it's hard to decide what Dion would be saying to an Albertan MP, considering that he doesn't have any in his caucus.

Beyond that, while he again mischaracterizes reactions to Boshcoff's comments -- be they candid or otherwise -- as evidence of Alberta's allegedly bubbling separatism, Garth overlooks a very important fact:

There's a reason why Albertans don't trust the Liberal party. And yes, it does have a lot to do with the National Energy Program. And rightfully so.

The unconstitutionality of the NEP -- intervening in a policy sphere constitutionally ceded to provincial jurisdiction -- has long been established. The irreversable and irrecoverable damage done to the Albertan economy has long been established.

But the biggest slight -- the one that provokes the greatest amount of anger and resentment -- is the Liberal insistence that the damaging results of the National Energy Program should simply be dismissed to the pages of history.

All too often, this is insisted by individuals who lost nothing in the course of the NEP. And Albertans -- who, yes, do have a long memory -- remember these things quite vividly. And, no, Albertans do not believe those losses have beome irrelevant. And they certainly don't believe those losses are "yesterday's news".

Meanwhile, the Liberal party promises the carbon tax won't hurt our economy, and promise it won't result in any additional taxes. Yet the Liberal party has made such promises before, and broken them before.

Mr Boshcoff, Mr Turner: there is a reason westerners -- and Albertans in particular -- don't trust the Liberal party. And to figure out precisely what that reason is, all you need do is take a good, hard look at your own comments... and in a mirror.

We don't trust you.

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Garth Turner has Alberta separatism -- and little else -- on the brain

In a recent post on his blog, Garth Turner continues to milk the controversy surrounding his boneheaded separatism remarks for all he can get.

In the post, he quotes several blogs -- including The Nexus -- and their responses to his recent -- and protracted -- remarks regarding Alberta separatism.

However, Garth truly stretches credulity when he takes aim at this Calgary Herald editorial:

"Once a Tory, now a Liberal MP, Garth Turner used his blog last week to call Albertans "a bunch of self-aggrandizing, hostile, me-first, greedy, macho, selfish and balkanizing separatist losers . . . just like the separatists in Quebec."

We admire his directness. No point crafting innuendoes when a simple insult will do. Now, Albertans know where they stand with Garth. (So do Quebecers.)

That's more than we can say for his boss, Stephane Dion, who said the party was seeking a more respectful debate than Turner was offering. But, of course, the debate is over a so-called green plan that appears to be a way of siphoning money out of the West for social programs in the East. That's hostile, too.

The obvious explanation is that it's the same old thing: The Liberals have so little to lose in the West, they might as well be hostile if it helps them gather votes in the East.

What else is new? It keeps happening, from the NEP, to Jean Chretien's "tough love" speech, in which he asserted his preference for doing business with easterners, to his lectures about values, as though ours were inferior to those conceived in central Canada, and the consistent Liberal strategy toward the West of acting first, and consulting later. The whole Kyoto Protocol fiasco is a case in point.

And so on. No wonder the Reform Party got to first base yelling, "The West wants in."

The truth is, there's a part of central Canada that just doesn't seem to like what the West stands for. It could be envy, it might also be anxiety that

Alberta's star is rising as theirs is falling. It could be tribalism that in Ontario requires a pickup-driving out-group to despise in order to elevate one's own self-esteem. Never mind that Ontario builds the trucks, or that the people buying them produce oil everybody uses.

Whatever it is, loathing Alberta seems to be fun and easy.

Would it make a difference if we apologized for that bumper sticker about letting them freeze in the dark? Probably not.

After all, how does one engage with a blogger who's a bit "self-aggrandizing, hostile, me-first," himself -- or the leader who doesn't shut him up?"

Which is very heady stuff.

It's hard for many Westerners to overlook the dismissiveness of Liberal politics toward the region. For many Westerners, it's absolutely impossible.

Of course, coming from the comparatively politically priviledged province of Ontario, it's likely hard for Garth Turner to ever understand this. Even when the long-derided shadow of Western alienation manifested itself in the aforementioned "the West wants in" mentality of the Reform party, many central Canadians have stubbornly refused to ever acknowledge it, and even went so far as to erect some steeply ideological firewalls to ensure that something other than a basic and obvious lack of equity could be blamed for the West's aggitation.

In Turner's case that firewall seems to be the notion of separatism, as he demonstrates in his response to the Herald:

"Because I know the Herald likes to be accurate, please note the quote you attributed to me in your editorial is incorrect. You quoted me as called Albertans “a bunch of self-aggrandizing, hostile, me-first, greedy, macho, selfish and balkanizing separatist losers…just like the separatists in Quebec.”

In fact, I wrote this on my blog (the words are still there) in reference to Stephane Dion: “He stood up once to the self-aggrandizing, hostile, me-first, greedy, macho, selfish and balkanizing separatist losers in Quebec. I guess he can do it again in Alberta.”

The difference? My sentence referred to Quebec separatists following the 1995 referendum. The clear inference was that Dion could do the same to Westerners who like to talk secession. The reference was not to all Albertans. Worse, the Calgary Herald actually made up part of this quote – “just like the separatists in Quebec.”

Yeah, I know it helped make your case that “Albertans know where they stand with Garth.” But it wasn’t true.

Almost all Albertans are proud Canadians who share my faith in a great future together. Some are losers who threaten Easterners. The best way forward is to be honest and open with each other, and a great newspaper can lead the way."

So there you have it.

Not only does Turner imagine that media commentators are expected to read his mind and understand that "OK, he isn't talking about all Albertans here, only those darned separatists" (cue sound of crickets chirping), by golly, all the Albertans who are still mad about the National Energy Program, or who want a Triple-E senate just want to "threaten Easterners".

Or, maybe Westerners are fed up with self-aggrandizing, hostile, me-first, greedy, macho, selfish and balkanizing individuals like Senator Keith Davey, who once described his party's election strategy as "screw the West, we'll take the rest", or former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who once told Westerners they should vote Liberal if they wanted their voices heard.

Or Garth Turner, who invents a separatist menace in Alberta in order to justify his wholly unjustifiable comments.

Which is really where the entire Turner argument begins and ends. Either there is a potent separatist threat in Alberta, worthy of all the attention Turner wants to direct at them, or it isn't.

If Turner could point to just one, single, solitary separatist of any political prominence whatsoever in Alberta, that would be one thing. At least it would lend his flailing a slight bit of credibility.

But he has yet to identify one. And for good reason: there aren't any.

Which may be one of the reasons why Turner's initial comment is the gift that keeps on giving: it keeps revealing Turner's utter ignorance about virtually everything West of the Ontario/Manitoba border.

And That'll Totally Happen, Too

Lorne Gunter tells Garth Turner to stop digging his hole deeper -- fat chance of that

In today's National Post, columnist Lorne Gunter offers Halton Conservative-turned-Liberal MP Garth Turner some very simple advice:

"When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

Following his 3 July blog post in which he mused about Quebecois and Albertan separatists and subsequent chewing out by Liberal leader Stephane Dion, the specious hits just keep on coming.

Today, it has (seemingly) culminated in a rather odd excuse for an apology:

"I apologize.

More specifically, I would like to express my regret, and say that I am sorry,

• that I made Dion’s trip to Alberta more difficult. He didn’t need it. He’s a good man
• that we now live in a country where you cannot call separatists, losers
• that I learned the French words for, well, never mind
• that a bunch of people in the West can’t get over a 28-year-old policy and a dead prime minister. What a burden to carry around
• that I had impure thoughts about Ezra Levant. And Lorne Gunter. Dave Rutherford. John Gormley. The Flames.
• that we burned electrons and felled trees to discuss this, rather than the economy or the environment
• that my words were as intemperate as they were heartfelt. I must watch that
• that we can’t discuss climate change any more without talking about money
• that so many people say they hate where I live
• that the country’s divided
• that I made it moreso. And,
• that a member of Parliament, speaking out, is news."

So, after all the turmoil that has overtaken Turner and his politial career over the last several days, the best he can seem to offer, like a petulant 10-year-old, "I'm sorry... that you're such a jerk".

It really casts new light on the title of Gunter's column.

But once again, it provides us with a unique window into the inner workings of Turner's mind:

-Stephane Dion is an absolutely dandy guy.
-Separatists are such whiners!
-People are swearing at me in French!
-Albertans are such whiners!
-Ezra Levant, Lorne Gunter, Dave Rutherford, John Gormley and the Flames' mamas.
-I wish people would stop talking about it.
-I meant what said. So what if I can't defend it?
-Climate change, climate change, climate change. Screw the economy.
-I'm making Halton rather unpopular...
-I think the country is divided,
-...And I'm not embarrassed to make it moreso, if I can benefit politically from it.
-Wait... MPs get paid to be jerks... don't we?

Most of these little thought bubbles are certainly less than malign, and largely more than a little meaningless.

But only Garth Turner could look at the current state of Canada and see a country divided. As previously noted, separatism in Alberta -- never a terribly potent force -- is as much an afterthought as it has ever been. Separatism has been so effectively managed in Quebec that the Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois are both putting off any thoughts of another "sovereigty association" referendum in to the far, far distant future.

While there remains the same minor partisan divisions among Canadians, this is no different than it's ever been. The future of the country is hardly at stake.

Except in the mind of Garth Turner. So much so that Stephane Dion, the alleged hero of the struggle against the disciples of Rene Levesque, Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau needs to go stand up to Albertans before the grudge they harbour over the National Energy Program bubbles over into outright separatism.

We could eliminate our need for energy produced by fossil fuels if only Canadians could harness the energy of eyes rolling from coast to coast.

So, as Turner continues to stew ingloriously in his own juices, one thing becomes immediately apparent: it really does seem that Garth and his blog just can't seem to keep themselves out of trouble.

When Turner got kicked out of the Conservative party caucus, it was ultimately his blogging that was to blame.

Now, his blogging has gotten him into trouble again.

It's impossible to overlook the recurrent theme.

Lorne Gunter likely doesn't expect Turner to stop digging his hole deeper. He's already dug himself out of the government caucus, into opposition, into the Opposition Leader's bad books, and god only knows where next.

At least it makes for good entertainment.

Smooth One, Garth

One of Canada's biggest political big mouths spouts a real gem

One almost has to appreciate Halton Conservative-turned-Liberal MP Garth Turner. He really is the gift that keeps on giving.

More specifically: to Albertans, reasons to not vote Liberal ever again and to his leader Stephane Dion, headaches.

Yesterday, in a post in which he questioned whether or not Stephen Harper would debate Stephane Dion regarding Dion's carbon tax:

"the Conservatives say the Liberal plan would cost consumers, hobble the economy and be unfair to the West. The Libs say the Con plan is a sham since it will have almost no environmental impact, end up making all energy more expensive, do nothing to help consumers cope or assist businesses to go green.

Meanwhile Canadians are freaked out about gas prices, worried about economic slowdown and think governments are doing nothing about the future of the planet. In other words, what would be better to crystallize positions and help us all understand the problem and the solutions, than a debate?

But, sadly, ain’t gonna happen. The prime minister will not play. This is either because (a) he knows he will lose because his plan sucks, or (b) he does not want to give the leader of the opposition equal footing with Himself, or (c) too many pancakes will die, or (d) he feels sorry for the skinny guy, or (f) it’s just a lot easier to say “this will screw everybody.”"

Turner let loose this particular pearl of wisdom:

"As for Dion, he will move from Calgary to Edmonton, where he’s to have an open, Town Hall meeting on his climate change plan. You might not agree with everything the man says, but you have to admire this about him. He stood up once to the self-aggrandizing, hostile, me-first, greedy, macho, selfish and balkanizing separatist losers in Quebec. I guess he can do it again in Alberta."

It's hard to decide where to start with Turner.

One could point out that if one were to accept his argument that Alberta and Quebec are the "me-first" provinces, it's hard to overlook Ontario's perennial reputation as the "me-only" province.

And while Turner isn't the first Liberal to write off Alberta (or Western Canada in general) as "hostile" to the rest of Canada -- Hard Right Turn author and failed Liberal candidate Brooke Jeffrey went so far as to breathlessly insist that Western Canadians supported the Reform party as an attempt to dominate the central Canadians they "despise" -- one has to wonder how precisely Turner is defining this hostility.

If he were to suggest that Albertans -- like Quebecers -- are hostile to politicians who want to treat their province as a cash cow while breaking their promises at will, he'd probably be right about that.

And if Albertans really can be considered as "selfish" as Turner insists, there's always one other little nuance that he's naturally overlooked: at least Albertans are being selfish with their own money, as opposed to someone else's.

Then on top of all that, there's the real meat and potatoes of Turner's argument, which turns out to be rather thin gruel indeed.

Certainly, Turner could insist that the Conservatives' plan "sucks", but he'd have to ignore the fact that the Conservative plan, with its mandated 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, is actually much closer in line with what environmental groups are demanding than Dion's plan, which comes with no mandated reduction.

Certainly, Turner could insist that Harper is stooping to the lowest common denominator by pointing out that "the plan will screw everybody", but then he'd have to overlook the fact that the Liberal party has a history of making grand promises, then screwing everybody who believes them.

Certainly, Turner could insist that Dion is merely standing up for Canadians against separatism in Quebec and the West, but then he'd have to overlook that Alberta is as Canadian as anywhere else in the country, and has yet to give rise to a credible separatist movement.

Then again, we know that Turner is quite adept at selectively overlooking things when he feels so inspired.

He only further demonstrated this with what passes for a mea culpa on his blog, wherein he continued to insist he was only commenting about separatists.

(Once again, find a politically credible separatist in Alberta, Mr Turner, and we'll talk.)

And, as ever seems to be the case with Garth Turner, one has to wonder how much this really has to do with separatism, how much this really has to do with climate change and how much this really has to do even with partisanship as it has to do with his unending vendetta against "hats and horses Conservatives" and the people who elected them.

For someone who posts a picture of the Canadian flag atop a post about how he puts the country first and his political opponents don't, Turner has an odd habit of putting his own grudges first and making himself utterly transparent while doing it.

No one can credibly pretend that Turner doesn't remember the 1993 election in which he and his fellow Mulroney-era Progressive Conservatives were unceremoniously routed from office under the rising tide of Reform party support.

When Turner is ready to actually start putting the country ahead of his lingering grudges, Canadians -- or, at the very least, Stephane Dion -- will be all the better off for it.

This Just In: Garth Turner Still Doesn't Get It

Turner continues his obsessive feud with Preston Manning's ghost

When Garth Turner was expelled from the governing Conservative caucus just over a year ago, he feigned confusion over the matter -- even outrage.

At the end of the day, however, all too many Canadians knew precisely why he had been kicked out of caucus: that he engineered his own expulsion both by disregarding caucus rules and by helping foster a state of continuing conflict between himself as his ex-Reform party/Canadian Alliance colleagues.

At stake in the latter was his known disdain for what he had labeled HAH (Hats-and-Horses) Conservatives.

Now, unable to swallow his pride and his intellectual vanity, he sits on the other side of the aisle, banished to opposition benches with little hope of ever returning to government. In all likelihood, he will serve out the remainder of his career as an opposition blowhard.

One would think that perhaps Turner would, at some point, reevaluate where that vanity has led him.

But don't count on it. In a recent post at his blog Turner has proven himself all too eager to continue his Ahab-esque battle with the Great White political whale that has already taken his hand:

"Some suggest disgruntled Libs voted Green in this week’s by-elections to protest their own party. Be more aggressive, they urge. Kick Conservative ass.

Others decry a brief comment made here two days ago, chiding many people for simply staying home. Bad voters, I said, use it or lose it. The response: there’s nobody worth voting for.

In my mailbag, this letter from a voter, Ian, in Eastern Ontario. Not atypical of a few I’m getting:

"Dear Garth:

I recently became a new member of the Liberal Party. Sometimes I wonder why. Watching their performance in The House leaves a lot to be desired – skipping votes. I have been voting for the Liberal Party for nearly 60 years. My wife and I are among the many who lost in the Trust Unit fiasco. So much for Harper promises.

The main reason for this e-mail is The Finance Minister travelling about the Country advising Ontario is not the place to invest due to high taxes in the corporate field. Harper is now singing from the same song sheet. Moreover, Harper is merely a mouthpiece for Tom Flanagan. Small govenment, lower taxes, limited Govenment surplus, is the Flanagan manifesto. The Conservative (Reform-Alliance) Party objective to divide the Country. Much of the population cannot see this and do not care.

I do not know Stephane Dion. The information, I gather, is that he is a clever academic. I do, however, fear for his ability to lead the Party to a majority/minority Government. The Liberal Party has to get a more forceful message regarding exactly what is happening with our present governing power. I do appreciate in general the media coverage are not helpful towards Mr. Dion. Coverage from CTV (Conservative Television) including Duffy, Fife, Oliver et al.

Question Period in the House is disgraceful. The Speaker appears to have no control. The failure to answer questions, lying and insults are disgusting.

Again, I fear Mr. Dion’s ability to lead to a Liberal success are about as hopeful as the “South will rise again”!!!!!!"

Dear Ian. I’m glad you wrote. I’m glad you joined the party. Now you have a voice in changing it. As you decide how, let me give you a couple of thoughts from a guy who is also a new member – just over a year now.

The Liberals formed government for thirteen years and did much good, mostly (to my mind) turning a $40 billion deficit into a $14 billion surplus, taking inflation and interest rates to new lows and paving the way for an economic boom. Even as a PC during that time, I applauded the results.

Politically, well, another story. Face it – getting Libs into power was not rocket science while the PCs disintegrated, thanks to the efforts of the wingnuts in the Reform Party, which was basically unelectable. Given that, Liberals stopped being hungry, stopped being aggressive, stopped being insanely partisan, and concentrated on governing."

Sadly, this is a fairly predictable response among many disgruntled former Progressive Conservatives. Much like Liberals can't take responsibility for their own defeats, instead blaming the NDP essentially for existing, Turner, Joe Clark and his merry band of embittered demagogues blame the Reform party for their 1993 defeat -- more or less because they existed.

But it's funny how, even 15 years after that ignominious defeat, Turner can't accept responsibility for the fact that the Progressive Conservatives, through their utterly unapologetic attempts to placate Quebec at the expense of the rest of the country, in many ways made it utterly impossible for conservative-minded Canadians in many parts of the country to continue to support them.

Somehow, in Garth Turner's mind, the plebes in Western Canada were wrong to seek out and support political candidates who shared their vision of what Canada's future should be. Instead, they should have swallowed their principles and continued to vote for a party that no longer embodied them.

"Meanwhile, Conservatives (which is what those Reformers are now called), evolved in an opposite direction. Unburdened with power, they spent every moment plotting how to get it. They organized the shorts off their membership. They learned how to communicate effectively. They got very good at spin, attack, derision, debate, character assassination, smear, media relations, innuendo, tactics, tour and messaging. They set up a killer data system. They hired a mess of political field operatives. They honed a platform. They learned retail politics. They probed the many weaknesses of the guys in office. They hired tough nuts like Doug Finley and Ian Brodie to run the back shop. They lived and ate and drank and slept and breathed and peed politics. And they won."

"Spin, attack, derision, debate, character assassination, smear, media relations, innendo, tactics, tour and messaging."

Sounds an awful lot like the lot that Turner has thrown in with.

It's ironic that Turner would complain that the Conservative party -- or in his words, Reform party 3.0 -- has become adept at character assassination considering that the party to which he currently belongs actually mastered the act.

For proof of this, one really need look no further than the mass character assassination carried out against Preston Manning and the Reform party. Repeated insinuations of racism against the party -- often carried out through proxies and in open defiance of the fact that Manning acted decisively to rid the party of racists -- made the Reform party unelectable in many parts of the country.

Which was precisely how Garth Turner liked it at the time, and he's almost certainly longing for those good ol' days.

"Today Stephen Harper is therefore not only prime minister, but in charge of a bare-knuckle brigade of streetfighters who still dream nightly of standing over the torn-asunder carcasses of Liberals, holding aloft their still-beating hearts. Or close. You get my drift, Ian?

Thus, you might imagine the work I’ve been doing for the last few months as a special advisor to Stephane Dion. Feeding him raw steak. Hormone injections. Weights. Anger training. New glasses with hidden electrodes. Bought him a Harley. The works. When the House resumes March 31st, I’ll have the guy so hepped up he’ll rip out his desk during QP and crush Stephen Harper with it like a western pine beetle. Let the Speaker look irritated and call, “Order, order!” Bug juice on the mace. Bug bits everywhere.

Oops. Sorry Ian, forgive me. I had a CPC moment there."

The poor attempts at humour aside, Turner then indulges himself in a moment of comfortable delusions:

"Truth be told, Libs suck at political viciousness. Many of my colleagues are content to wait until the great pendulum of common sense swings back into their column, at which time they will continue to govern. They feel Mr. Harper and his knuckle-draggers will expose themselves for all the world to see. In due course, they reason, natural justice will prevail."

There you go again, Garth -- making friends with your former colleagues.

All joking aside, does Turner really not consider this ad, in which the Liberal party suggested that Stephen Harper is a jack-booted fascist in the making, politically vicious?

But don't ask Turner about that one. Turner's only concerned with Conservative attack ads.

"Those who actually know Stephane Dion never stop being impressed. They see a guy driven not by a naked quest for power, but by ideas and principles and the passion to pursue them. Even when sand is being kicked in his face. Even when not a day passes when the prime minister and the entire Government of Canada is obsessed with destroying him. Even when people who have never shaken his hand, and never will, pronounce him from their armchairs, brandishing remotes, as gutless.

Dion is anything but. It amazes me a guy of his background, morality and intellect would put up with this crap. After all, he could still be in the world of academia, applauded daily by his students, courted by premiers and prime ministers for his advice, adding to our collective wisdom and having a nice life with Janine and Kyoto.

So, we’re all better off that he perseveres. He stands for environmental rescue, social justice, economic sanity and the big ideas the rest of us miss. Mostly, he represents hope.

Not hope that he’ll be as mindlessly partisan, brutally aggressive or unashamedly ambitious as Mr. Harper, but rather, Ian, that he will never."

Indeed, Turner's obsessive attempts to settle the score with his alleged Reform party protagonists has led him into a realm of sheer fantasy.

Stephane Dion stands for environmental rescue: not when he had the opportunity.

Stephane Dion stands for social justice: when he trots out a 40-year-old unkept Liberal campaign promise.

Stephane Dion stands for economic sanity: when he suggests we should handcuff our economy with a carbon tax that will do little to curb climate change.

Since receiving the boot from the government caucus, Garth Turner really does seem to have slowly lost his grip on reality. Sadly, a good deal of that stems from his own political vanity -- the same vanity shared by Joe Clark, David Orchard and Danny Williams. He's not merely a conservative, he's a progressive conservative, they add with a wink.

He, like Orchard, still hasn't come to grips with why Canada's Progressive Conservative party wound up in the predicament it did: because so-called progressive conservatives lost touch with their supporters. Because they lost the faith.

He, like Clark, still hasn't recognized that in order for conservatism to remain a viable, potent political force in Canada, people like himself need to work with conservatives who don't share all of his views, instead of insisting that they be banished to the political fringe so that he never need dirty his hands working with them.

Brian Mulroney swallowed his pride. So did Peter MacKay. The day that Garth Turner can find it in himself to do the same, maybe he'll finally start taking responsibility for his own failings. Maybe he'll even convince Stephane Dion to do likewise.

But in the meantime, Turner just doesn't get it. And he probably won't get it any time in the near future.

So, Let's Define "Sleaze", If We May...

Apparently, tough questions reserved for Conservatives alone

Let's take a quick survey here. Which of the following scenarios is sleazier?

Dragging an alleged big-money offer to a deceased politician out from the grave for partisan gain, or asking the people flinging those accusations the kind of tough questions that various confusing ambiguities regarding the situation demand?

Garth Turner, you're up first:

"The lowest and sleaziest moment thus far in a sad tale: Mike Duffy asking Cadman’s daughter, live on TV, if her dying dad was “fuzzy on drugs” when he told her about the Conservative offer. To her credit, she did not tell him to get stuffed."

At face value, Turner would seem to have a point. It seems like a fairly sleazy question.

Then one remembers that Cadman was, at the time, dying of skin cancer. He was literally within the last few days of his life, likely being administered pain killers to help him cope with the notable agony dying of malignant melanoma.

The question addressed to Jodi Cadman should be considered a tough question for a reason. Tough questions aren't obligated to be tough.

While perhaps dabbling on the side of the uncouth, the question warrants consideration.

Especially when one considers that the claims being made by Jodi and Dona Cadman actually contradict the public statements of Cadman himself -- who publicly denied being offered anything in return for his vote -- it becomes especially prescient.

Meanwhile, Turner and his colleagues in the Liberal party have been going to town on "Cadscam" (as its been dubbed by various partisan bloggers) despite all the confusing inconsistencies in the entirety of the tale.

(And if one doesn't suspect that Turner himself is eager for a little revenge after being thrown out of the Conservative caucus, consider these comments:

"When I was a Conservative member of parliament, before that party threw me out, I heard the prime minister call Chuck Cadman a poor MP The prime minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization and power.

Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why the prime minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?"

Disgusting.

Was the offer of a million-dollar life insurance policy to a dying MP in exchange for his vote sleazy if it indeed happened? Absolutely.

But is dragging the entire allegation -- and Mr Cadman's memory along with it -- back through the mud again under extremely curious pretenses sleazy? The answer to this question is equally absolute, and the answer to this question is yes.

One has to remember that this is the same party that insisted a Commons Ethics Committee had to be called over rehashed (and extremely unconvincing) accusations against Brian Mulroney by Karlheinz Schreiber. Now, they're insisting that an Ethics Committee has to be called over another would-be scandal, this time based on rehashed (and extremely confusing) accusations.

It's pure sleaze. The situation itself is sleazy enough. One has to wonder how Garth Turner thinks he will benefit by heaping another helping of sleaze right on top it.

Chicken... Egg?

Consider this: Stephen Harper kicks Garth Turner out of caucus for airing what is said in caucus on his blog. Henceforth, what is said in caucus remains in caucus.

Garth Turner joins the Liberals. Henceforth, what is said in caucus is aired in the media.

Coincidence? One wonders.

Turner Breaks Promise, Jumps to the Liberals

"Red Tory" Garth Turner turns to the Liberals

As the world turns, the world of most people only turns one way.

Unless you’re Garth Turner – in which case you would probably wish it to turn both ways. Today, Halton MP Garth Turner repudiated a prior promise not to join the Liberal party after being kicked out of the Conservative government’s caucus due to his breech of caucus confidentiality.

Turner had previously stated he would sit as an independent MP. He had even refused overtures from the Green Party’s Elizabeth May.

As his goals, Turner listed, among other things, tax reform, political reform, “digital democracy” and environmental activism – things that have never happened under the modern Liberal party. Some things of which had been talked about, but none of which had ever really happened.

In recent months, Turner has been criticized as being stubborn, opportunistic, and treacherous. Many people – including myself – have defended him from such claims. Imagine the embarrassment of individuals such as myself having learned today that such accusations may be more true than we had admitted.

Given that one of his cardinal reasons for joining the Liberal party was “to sit on a committee” is demonstration enough of his opportunism.

Turner claimed that he would find “greater freedom” within the Liberal party – the same Liberal party that forced Dr. Carolyn Parrish to vote against extending compensation to victims of Hepatitis-infected blood beyond an arbitrary date that conveniently protected the Liberal government from accepting responsibility for victims infected during Pierre Trudeau’s administration.

When Stephan Dion took a strong, strict partisan stance against Stephen Harper’s speech to Ottawa’s Canadian Club, Turner, the MP now enjoying “greater freedom” simply dutifully said, “I agree.”

Turner decried that he had promised his constituents that the Conservative government would be, “moderate, tolerant and mainstream”. To anyone other than an opportunist or an ideologue, there is simply no way to construe the current government as having been anything but moderate, tolerant and mainstream.

Despite the fact that it was a Liberal government that instituted the Chinese head tax, the Conservative party, under Stephen Harper issued an apology, and has offered compensation.

The Conservative party also introduced the Clean Air Act – legislation superior to Kyoto, yet opposed by “environmental lobby” ideologues because it isn’t Kyoto. Despite the claims of various ideologues, the Conservative party has consistently governed from the center, and had even stepped to the left on a number of occasions – including an announcement of aid grants designed to help the homeless.

Turner claimed that, despite his previous promises, joining the Liberals didn’t compromise his integrity. However, he did end his press conference on a strong note – promising that if Harper would call bi-elections for David Emerson, Wajid Kahn and Michel Fortier to defend their decisions to the electorate, he would be part of a fourth by-election.

But, then again, we know how well Turner keeps his promises.

Conservatives Turf Turner

Bad fucking idea

Instructions for a political fiasco:

1. Get gun
2. Point at feet
3. Pull trigger

The Conservative party followed these instructions perfectly today, squeezing the trigger on the suspension of Garth Turner from the Conservative caucus.
Fuck.

Ever controversial, Turner was noted as being a politician that does not fit in with the stereotype of a Conservative. A small-c conservative with socially progressive views. Sure, he favors smaller government and lower taxes. He’s also a small-l liberal where it counts, favoring more rights for all Canadians.

The Conservative party claimed that Turner was violating the secrecy of caucus. There may be some truth for this. For example, in a recent weblog post, Turner speculated on the contents of the next federal budget, writing, “So, I'd wager the coming budget will look pretty much like this: another point off the GST, a drop in the income tax rate for the lowest bracket, the promised rollover in capital gains taxes for reinvested profits (look for a complicated new investment account to be created - Bay Street will love it), provisions for social benefits not be clawed back for lower-income workers, a lower growth forecast for the economy, an agricultural action plan, bringing in new income-support for farmers, [and] more middle-class tax credits aimed at family expenses.”

Now, if one considers that a budget discussion should take place under conditions of secrecy (I, personally, do not), this certainly does violate that secrecy.

The Conservative party has insisted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper had nothing to do with Turner’s suspension, and even sustained from the national caucus vote that decided the issue.

Interestingly, many media outlets took this story as an opportunity to play a game of “get Harper”, asking questions insinuating that Harper was behind the decision. Neither Turner, nor any of his former colleagues confirmed any allegations.
Turner, for his part, has resolved to follow the wishes of his constituents. He has promised to hold town hall meetings in the next week before he decides what he will do. He has promised he will sit at a “caucus of one”, and will not join any of the other parties.

The Conservative party, however, has some very serious questions to answer. For a party that is garnering a reputation for secrecy, to suspend Turner in such a manner is simply a bone-headed move. Suddenly, the one answer to all the criticisms ideologues levy against the Conservative party has been banished to sit as an Independent.

Bigotry? Garth Turner.

Same sex marriage? Garth Turner.

Right-wing extremism? Garth Turner.

Garth Turner may have been the most prominent leftover from the Progressive Conservative party left in the Conservative party. No more. Mere hours after the suspension of Turner from the Conservative caucus, a new seating plan was released, with Turner sat on the other side of the house – far away from his former colleagues.
On Mike Duffy live, a fellow Conservative MP even suggested that Canadians may see Turner sit as a Liberal or NDP member in the next session of parliament – but not as a Conservative.

The Conservative Party has just distanced itself from the most valuable member of their caucus: their voice of conscientious dissent. This is something that is of incredible value to any party: it demonstrates variety within the opinions of that party.

With recent polls suggesting that the Conservatives and Liberals are tied in national polling, this is a move that could not have possibly came at a worse time. Turner is an MP the Conservative Party should have clutched near and dear to its heart.

If there is any sense left in the minds of the Conservative party, it is hopefully not too late to turn back the clock, and take Turner back.

Otherwise, Canadians may not like the answers the Conservatives have for the questions they will need to answer.

Grudge Match: Religious Right vs. ...Conservative Partyt!?

Christian activists seek to crucify Garth Turner

It is safe to say that politics and religion are, more often than not, a volatile combination.

Sometimes politics and religion go hand-in-hand. When the need arises, religious

leaders of varying stripes can be effective organizers. Many would consider this to be mainly true of right-wing conservative parties. This isn't necessarily so. Tommy Douglas, the greatest leader ever offered by a Canadian left-wing party, drew his roots directly from Gospel Protestantism -- a socialist breed of Christianity.
But the opposite is just as often the case -- if not more so.

Lately, Conservative MP Garth Turner has had an interesting fight on his hands. At a time when many critics of the Conservative party want to accuse it of being too close to Christian fundamentalists (for the past ten years, in fact), Turner has seemingly incurred the wrath of Charles McVety.

McVety, who is active with a number of Canadian Christian advocacy groups -- including Defend Marriage Canada, the Canada Christian College and the Canada Family Action Coalition -- recently shared a disagreement with Turner over the role of a Christian activist. McVety believes that this role is to defeat "anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-life" Conservative MPs with "family-friendly" Christian candidates.

Naturally, with talk such as this, the subject was same-sex marriage. Naturally, it is safe to assume that McVety is opposed to it.

"[McVety's] group, as you can see in the post below, is after my political head since I trashed their stated plans to swamp nomination meetings of Tory MPs who support gay marriage and are otherwise morally deficient," Turner writes on his weblog, The Turner Report. " I said I disagree with any special interest candidates who are foisted on a party or a riding in a stacked nomination meeting, especially when a sitting MP – electable and experienced – is the victim of a one-night hijacking."

The one-night hijacking in question are schemes in which McVety organizes individuals sympathetic to his cause to purchase Conservative party memberships, and flood pre-election nomination meetings in order to help install a candidate who will support his agenda.

Hijacking isn't a new trick for McVety. He has been known to register online domains under the names of politicians, particularly those who oppose his views. Many critics consider this to be cybersquatting. However, because he uses these sites to express opinions regarding each particular politician's views, the law allows him to do so under tenets of acceptable use.

Charles McVety is not a man who believes in the separation of church and state. His plan to supplant the candidates of a political party with religious activists is chilling to those who believe in the secular state. This is precisely what Turner was alluding to when he wrote: "Faith-based politics is fine. It has a long tradition. It can accomplish a lot of good. But when one religious or cultural group engineers a coup, overwhelming existing political party members and workers, and replacing a politician elected by a plurality of people with a single-issue monochromatic militant, well, kiss democracy goodbye."

Supporters of McVety would later try to use this statement to paint him as an anti-religious zealot. Perhaps a person may suggest it would take a zealot to know one, and if this was true McVety would certainly know one if he saw it.

Along with his wife and children, McVety attended the 2005 Liberal party convention aboard his famed "Defend Marriage" tour bus. About the experience he wrote the following: "As in the days of Lot the penalty for the righteous was that they knocked on the doors of Lot and demanded his young men for their sexual pleasure. This was the penalty for the righteous being “wrong” in their eyes. As I stood on a rally platform outside the Convention Centre we prayed that marriage would be defended Canada protected. Hecklers cursed and swore at us and held up a sign displaying the word 'Immoral'."

This would certainly be a frightening bundle of rhetoric, if it didn't instead provoke one very simple response: what the fuck?

He noted that his daughter, confronted by the contempt and fury of the Liberal attendees, asked him: "daddy, why are they spitting at us?" He neglects to mention that he exposed his children to this behavior (as unacceptable as it may indeed be) knowingly and willingly. Which would make a certain amount of sense: his crusade against same-sex marriage is "for the children".

Let it also be known that this is a man who has organized boycotts against Famous Players theatres (for showing an advertisement supporting same-sex marriage) and the Da Vinci Code (apparently for being a fictional book about Christ).

If allowed to garner any significant amount of influence in the Conservative party, McVety would prove to be one of the greatest liabilities in the party's history. Those who suspiciously eye the Conservative party as crusaders aching to turn the clock back to the days when religion took a direct role in governance would suddenly have their poster boy -- a bigger, better poster boy than Stockwell Day ever could have been.

On the other hand, Turner is an absolute treasure for the Conservative party. He is an MP who defies the typical stereotype that critics of the party would like to promote. He may have a firey personality. He may love to get down and scrap with his opponents, but he stands for what he believes in. Most importantly, he is an indispensible voice of dissent within the party -- without such voices, the Conservatives risk becoming victim to that pitfall that has so entirely entrapped the Liberal party: groupthink.

In short, Turner is a Conservative who's not afraid to think outside that little conservative box. Consider this in comparison to McVety, who obviously believes it is some sort of grievous sin to think outside the pages of the Bible. This is like mixing Jedi and Sith: bad fucking idea.

The Conservative party needs to pull Turner in and hold him close, and push McVety as far away as it can. Only then can it step forth from the shadow of Christian fundamentalism, and get on with the business of being a secular political party.
After all, religion and politics can be a nasty mix.