2006: The Beginning of the End of the Liberal Party?

Liberal Party still paying for its mistakes

In 2006, something happened to the Liberal Party that they had considered unthinkable:

They were defeated in an election.

That year, Stephen Harper led the Conservative Party to form a minority government. He has resided at 24 Sussex Drive ever since, much to the consternation of the Canaidan left.

The Liberals spent the time since blaming everyone but themselves. They blamed the NDP -- who have since supplanted them as the official opposition -- for competing against them. They blamed the RCMP for choosing to investigate the income trust leak, after Finance Minister Ralph Goodale flat-out refused to investigate on his own.

They never came to grips with what led them to that defeat in the first place, and they're still paying.

Looking back on 2006, it was hard to know precisely how bad it would be for the Liberals moving forward. But looking back -- and hindisght is always 50/50 -- there were some signs. The best sign was actually the individuals who offered themselves as candidates to replace Paul Martin.

The frontrunner candidates in 2006 were Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. Stephane Dion eventually managed to emerge as the Liberal leader. Then there were the less-competitive also-rans.

Individuals like Joe Volpe, Ken Dryden, Martha-Hall Findlay, and Gerard Kennedy. What do these four have in common? They, along with Michael Ignatieff, lost their Parliamentary seats in the 2011 election. They also have in common outstanding debts -- nearly five years after the 2006 Liberal leadership convention -- from that campaign.

But the real story is the rout. Considering the position the Liberals were in circa 2006, each one of the leadership candidates who ran should have done so because they believed they could lead the Liberal Party back to power.

Five years later, five of these would-be Prime Ministers are out of Parliament, against their own wishes.

Was 2006 the beginning of the end of the Liberal Party? That chapter hasn't been written yet. Despite what the triumphalist cheerleaders of the NDP have declared, Canada is far better off with the Liberal Party than without it.

But in order for the Liberal Party to emerge intact, they must first learn from the mistakes that led to their 2006 defeat, and all the mistakes made since.

The best time -- perhaps the only time -- for them to do that is right now. If they don't 2006, really will have been the beginning of the end.

Conservatives Earning Support on Israel Issue

Under Tories, Canada a loyal ally to Jewish state

Canadians of many political inclinations often express concern at election time that foreign policy is not prominent enough at election time.

This election, it has taken turns at centre stage. But in many ridings, such as Ken Dryden's riding of York Centre, foreign policy -- particularly pertaining to Israel -- is rarely far from the forefront.

In Toronto-area riding York Centre, the Liberal vote has largely been about two groups: the Italian vote and the Jewish vote.

"The biggest change that's happened is that at one time, there were two very strong Liberal supporting communities in this riding, one was the Italian community and the other was the Jewish community," Dryden remarked. "The Italian community is still strong for the most part in supporting the Liberals and the Jewish community, many of them have shifted and are supporting the Conservatives."

As noted here previously, some of that shift can be attributed to dirty campaigning by the Conservatives. There's no reason whatsoever to write the Tories a free pass for it.

But some of that shift can be attributed to the fact that the Conservatives are earning that support by virtue of strong policy on Israel.

The fact that the Conservative Party policy on Israel -- namely, that Canada will support its allies instead of remaining silent when it matters -- appeals to the people who understand best precisely how important Israel is.

This isn't to say that the Liberal Party has, by any means, entirely derelicted the Israel issue. It was a Liberal Party government that outlawed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations in Canada. That clearly counts.

But so does moral support when Israel acts to defend itself. This is something the Liberals proved far less willing to provide. For example, in 2006, after Israel had moved to protect itself from attacks by Hezbollah, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused Israel of "war crimes". He later apologized for the remark. Two years later.

By the same mark, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Israel's response to be "a measured response". Which, regardless of the outrage of the far-left, it was.

In 2006, Israel was actually discharging its responsibilities under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which basically states that the sovereignty of states is dependent on the government acting to protect its citizens, and respect their human rights.

Simply put, if Israel had not acted to curtail Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians, the international community would have been responsible to do it. Unfortuantely, the international community would have been unlikely to act discharge that responsibility.

With Dryden facing the most difficult election of his political career, he may be reaping the whirlwind of Ignatieff's failure to act as a strong ally of Israel. Conservative candidate Mark Adler may be reaping the benefits of Harper's support.

"When I go door to door in the Jewish area, people are totally aware of the Harper record on Israel and the previous Liberal administration's record on Israel," Adler said. "The Jewish community is aware of Michael Ignatieff's comments with respect to Israel, claiming that Israel has committed war crimes in Lebanon."

There is, by no means, any guarantee that the Israel issue will carry the riding in York-Centre, or anywhere else. But the Tory shift in support in the Jewish community has been hard-fought, and (mostly) well-earned.

July 2009 Book Club Selection: Home Game, Ken Dryden & Roy MacGregor

In a month in which Canadians across the country and the world are celebrating our wonderful country, it's only appropriate to select a book that delves deeply into the Canadian cultural imagination.

Home Game was written as something of a sequel to The Game, in which Dryden followed his final season as a professional hockey player.

Home Game, written with Roy MacGregor, follows the central theme of The Game -- a life in hockey -- and applies it to the country as a whole, and chronicles the extent to which this magnificent sport may be the greatest unifying factor in Canada.

Regardless of wherever in Canada one comes from, one thing that nearly all of us agree on is our love of the sport of hockey.

Certainly, hockey isn't all there is to Canada. But Dryden and MacGregor make the case that it's a big part of it. The millions of us who tune in to Hockey Night in Canada on a wintry Saturday evening can attest to this.

The Complex Puzzle of Canadian Federalism

Daifallah suggests more "sex" is the answer for federalism

Writing an op/ed on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Adam Daifallah hits on what amounts to a key observation about the continuing battle between separatism and federalism in Quebec:

Federalism, he concludes, simply isn't glamour enough to compete with separatism on an emotional level:

"With apologies to Lisa Raitt, the biggest problem with federalism in Quebec is that the arguments in its favour are inherently unsexy. Who isn't at least mildly intrigued by the idea of founding a new country? It conjures up all sorts of romantic notions and fuzzy feelings. Defending federalism is defending the status quo -- which is almost always more difficult.

In the debate over Quebec's place in Canada, federalist forces will always be starting a few steps behind. In politics, emotion moves people, not ideas. Federalism is the greatest system of organizing government the world has seen. Yet Quebec federalists have continually failed to put forward an emotionally compelling alternative case to compete with the idealistic discourse of the sovereignists. 'Look how great things are' can't compete with 'Think of how great things could be.'"

Sadly, the appeal to "how great things could be" may not only be lacking in federalists in Quebec.

Earlier this year, Ken Dryden gave a series stirring speeches during a speaking tour in which he urged Canadians to be ambitious.

But that Canadians would need to be urged to be ambitious at all is, in itself, a troubling prospect. Canadians have been raised being told about the innumerous accomplishments of their country: in wartime, in science and technology, in art, and just in the act of building a country in one of the most inhospitable climates in the world.

Of all the things Canadians may lack, ambition shouldn't be one of them. But if federalists outside of Quebec can't muster that level of ambition, one cannot fault federalists within Quebec for failing to aspire to the same standard.

"I attended law school in Quebec City for three years. Part of my reason for doing so was to better understand Quebec and its political dynamic. I had been told that in order to truly appreciate Quebec politics, one must recognize that it is really two provinces: Montreal, and everywhere else. This proved to be true.

Quebec City is an ethnically homogeneous, culturally conservative city that sees itself as the epicentre of francophone North America -- and it is. It is confident in itself and in the status of the French language; there are so few English speakers that the Anglo 'menace' is not apparent. I'm convinced this fact is partly the source of its conservatism."

But one also has to keep in mind that the conservatism of Quebec City and its locales has been badly perverted.

That conservatism, especially in the post-Duplessis era of the province, has been transformed into a fervour for separatism. The Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois have earned their bread and butter by assembling a fragile electoral coalition of socialist progressives and cultural conservatives with nationalism acting as a glue to bind them. They've managed to seduce each with disturbing ease.

But even more disturbing is the blatant partisanship of many federalist organizations in Quebec. The director of one pro-Liberal federalist group recently lauded the decline in Conservative polling numbers as a good thing -- even though the Bloc Quebecois has made gains at the Tories' expense.

Somehow, partisanship between Canada's two political contenders has somehow come to mean more than fighting separatists -- otherwise, such individuals would be plenty content to combine forces with the Tories and fight the Bloc together.

But this would forget that many Quebeckers consider themselves Quebeckers first, and Canadians second:

"The francophone students I encountered at law school were generally confident, proud people who, while firmly attached to Quebec, were not strongly motivated by the sovereignist cause. It would be inaccurate to say they felt a strong attachment to Canada. Their loyalty first and foremost was to Quebec and likely always will be. But I never got the impression that there was a burning desire to forge ahead with the sovereignist project and hours of discussions confirmed this. Indeed, I only encountered one student who openly admitted he would take up arms and was willing to die for Quebec sovereignty.

These young people didn't grow up knowing Rene Levesque and don't hold grudges toward English Canada. Like many young people today, they are less attached to borders and the concept of nationality in general. With the rise of the Internet and social networking websites, the link between language and culture and territory has been broken. One can correspond, watch and read news and live in French just about anywhere now, not just on Quebec territory."

Yet, while the conditions that may spark cultural agitation between Quebec and English Canada remain low, Daifallah notes that the risk of such agitation is almost always present:

"In theory, then, all this should be good news for federalism. However, support for sovereignty in the polls remains constantly at 40% and above. Linguistic and political tensions have been low for at least the past decade. But the next time there is any sort of provocation or crisis, that number could easily grow to over 50% again. Why?

The reasons are many. Nationalist sentiment in Quebec will never completely die. Respect for the federal and provincial division of powers can keep passions at a low ebb. But the federalist camp has never made a serious and gripping case for Canada in Quebec. They have been too timid, too lazy or unwilling to tackle the sovereignist storyline head-on. Until this changes, there will never be a serious dent in support for sovereignty. The intensity of the passion for the sovereignist cause may be dissipating, but sovereignty continues to be the default option for disgruntled Quebecers. Making Quebecers realize that both federalism as a form of government and Canada as a country are sexy -- in part due to Quebec's being a part of it -- is the only way to change that."

Simply put, federalists in Quebec spend far too much time appealing to the rational intellects of Quebeckers -- not in and of itself a bad idea -- and not enough time appealing to emotion.

Federalist Quebeckers left themselves vulnerable to charges that Canada was simply an economic relationship between the various provinces. As Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau seemed to suggest in 1995, such a relationship could be reestablished with something so simple as admitting Quebec into NAFTA -- even if they simplified the ease with which Quebec could be admitted.

Only when it became apparent that the Referendum campaign was sliding disastrously in the direction of the separatists did federalists -- from across the country -- appeal to the emotions of Quebeckers with a massive rally in Montreal.

Daifallah clearly makes the case that in the complex puzzle of Canadian federalism, one key piece -- emotion -- is clearly missing.

In order to put Canada's separatist demons to bed for good, Canadians have to find the will to be a little more emotional about their country -- at least at a few times when an international hockey championship isn't on the line.

The Land of Possibilities

Anything is possible for Canada, if only Canadians believe it

For many years, many Canadians have feared a crisis of vision in Canadian politics.

Canada has come a long way since the heady days in which men like Pierre Trudeau, Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker spun glorious visions for Canada. Over the past 30 years Canadian politics has largely been reduced to ruminations over competing economic programs. Commerce has come to embody the visions Canada's leaders offer Canadians.

Liberal MP Ken Dryden, for one, has become wary of the acquiesence of all too many Canadians to a small vision for their country.

“We are more, so much more, than we are willing to see and know,” Dryden recently mused. “That bothers me because this understanding hammers into place in our country’s life a ceiling that is so limiting, so beneath what we can do and be.”

Dryden seems to think that this stems from what has emerged as an educational tradition in this country: teaching Canadians that their country is, by historical standards, a small country that has settled for a supporting role, second to larger and more powerful countries like the United States and Britain.

Yet Canadians have led on the global stage in many ways, and on many occasions -- something that Canadians all too often forget.

“If you have the wrong story, you get the wrong answer,” Dryden explained. “It’s time for a new story, because none of us can do the jobs the way they should be done without it.”

“Emerging out of World War II, the US was a country of greatness realized on the way to something greater," he continued. "Canada was a country of greatness imagined and greatness imaginable.”

Giving a voice to this kind of optimistic hope is something the Liberal party has long done much better than their premiere rivals, the Conservative party. This isn't to say that the Tories lack this belief in Canada.

Stephen Harper's great love of and faith in Canada is evident to those who actually listen to his words. These qualities are obscured by Harper's undeniably stuffy nature and by those who vacuously accuse him of wanting to transform Canada into the United States.

Most Liberal politicians clearly possess greater talents in terms of expressing an optimistic vision of Canada's future.

Ken Dryden is evidently no exception to this fact.

Moreover, he's right.

Canadians have fostered a vision of their country as one of the world's supporting countries. For too long Canadians have imagined their country as one that follows, as opposed to one that leads.

But Stephen Harper's words -- which all too often ring short of inspiring -- provide us with many reasons why Canadians should think of their country in grander terms.

Canada is an energy superpower. Between the oilfields of Western Canada and Nova Scotia, the hydroelectric resources of Quebec and British Columbia, and Saskatchewan's uranium, Canada can produce enough energy -- much of it renewable energy -- poises Canada to be uniquely influential in the global order. Candians only dare be bold enough to exert that influence.

Canadian researchers continue to lead in fields such as robotics and stem cell research -- both fields which will be increasingly important in future.

As a member of the G8, Canada has one of the largest and most productive economies in the world. The institutional infrastructure of Canada's economy has received high praise in the midst of the ongoing global economic crisis, meaning that Canada has partially insulated itself against the pitfalls that continue to suck other countries deeper and deeper into the ongoing calamity.

Even in the midst of the ongoing crisis Canada has an excellent base on which to continue building its future.

But mesmerized by an image of their country as a global bit-player, Canadians seem reluctant to imagine the kind of grand visions a country like Canada can embody.

This is something that needs to change. Canadians need to be taught that their country is more than a mere middle power. Canadians need to start thinking of themselves as a middle power with superpower amibitions, even if -- and especially if -- this doesn't embody becoming a military superpower.

Ken Dryden: Pwned With the Truth

Dryden fails to close snakeoil sale to economist

Coming via National Post Full Comment is the sordid tale of Liberal MP Ken Dryden trying to sell his mendacious pro-Coalition rhetoric via email to economist Sally Zerker.

Zerker begins the exchange by expressing her concerns about the proposed Coalition -- concerns shared by 59% of Canadians.

"Dear Mr.Dryden;

I am a constituent in your riding. I cannot believe that I would live to see the day when you and your party would be willing to undertake such an undemocratic coup as is now underway with your attempt to oust the government. There is simply no basis for the kind of reaction by the Liberal Party which involves manipulating the democratic process to satisfy the unseemly passion for power. You are obviously entitled to criticize the government but that shouldn't justify going into a deal with the devils, socialists on one side and separatists on the other. At issue is power for its own sake because this move on your part is totally contrary to the interests of Canada. I can only say "shame on you and your party".

Dr. Sally F. Zerker"

Dryden takes nearly two weeks to respond. When he does, however, the response is predictably partisan, and outright deceptive:

"Dear Dr. Zerker,

I had originally drafted this letter after the events of last week. The events of this week have also been of great impact to Canadians so I will try to speak to them as well.

We now have a new Liberal party leader, Michael Ignatieff. I support Michael and I support the process by which he was chosen as our leader. It is time for us to present to Canadians a permanent leader. Our economic situation as a country is such that world governments will be taking important decisions in the next months. The Harper Government, to say the least, has not responded to the global crisis in any real way. It is our job as the principal opposition party to push the Government to do more, and to do what is necessary. It is also our job, in this minority situation, to present to the public a party that is ready and able to govern. That requires a permanent leader who will plan and act like a permanent leader, and who is seen by Canadians as the permanent leader.

Michael has the overwhelming support of Liberal Caucus and of members across the country. I look forward to the important weeks and months ahead.

I would also like to say a few words about Stéphane Dion. This has not been an easy last two years for him or for the party. No one in Canadian political history has had to deal with the kind of abuse that Mr. Harper rained on Stéphane. But he hung in there and kept to those things he believed. In hockey, they say the “tough guys” are those who deliver thunderous bodychecks to their opponents. But to me, it’s easy to deliver the checks. The real “tough guys” are those who are willing to take a check to “make a play” — to make a pass to set up a goal. Those who are willing to accept whatever the punishment in order to achieve the bigger goal.

And that is Stéphane. He is as tough as they come. He went into politics not to get his name in the papers but because he thought those things he believed in most could be best pursued through politics. Now he is leaving as party leader, the public having delivered the message that he didn’t represent what they wanted as a prime minister but also, after all the blows, with his reputation for honesty, decency and intelligence absolutely intact, if not enhanced. A very significant achievement.

Now to last week. Let me try to tell you what I think —

This is a time when we face the most serious economic crisis since the 1930s. It is a time when as Canadians, as a world, as Parliamentarians, we know we need each other. We know we need to come together.

After the Speech from the Throne on November 19th, things began promisingly. All parties, knowing the expectations of Canadians, talked of working more co-operatively. There had been enough bad experiences in the past that MPs couldn’t be anything but tentative about this, still the words were there.

Mr. Flaherty’s Economic Update, however, turned out to be fundamentally, economically, distressingly inadequate. It did not reflect the dimensions of our problem. Other countries were acting seriously and determinedly. We were not.

All that would have been bad enough, but there was something more. Again, this was a time to work together. There was just one thing to focus on — the economy; people’s jobs; the well-being of families. Nothing else mattered. We knew that. Everyone knew that. But Mr. Harper just couldn’t resist. He chose to do what he had done before, but never so outrageously as this time. It was the very wrong moment to do the very wrong thing.

He decided as part of the Economic Update that there should be the elimination of public support for political parties. He argued that everyone needed to tighten their belts, and politicians should take the lead and set an example. What could be wrong about that? Except, of course, the impact of cuts like this relative to the economic crisis was practically zero; and further, the impact of this on what was his real intention would be anything but “practically zero.”

Mr. Harper knew that this would mean all the Opposition Parties and any fledgling party such as the Greens would be affected far more than the Conservatives, and that in the next few elections at least (and with minority governments these elections happen more often), these parties would have a far harder time competing and potentially winning, which real and fair competition is the basis of our democratic system. Further, that this action, so wrong on its own, was doubly, triply wrong in the context of an economic crisis where everyone needs to work together. Where everyone needs each other. Where everyone needs to trust each other and focus on just one thing: the economy.

This was Mr. Harper at his absolute worst (one would hope) doing something so completely so utterly political, so completely so utterly partisan and non-democratic, so fundamentally, so disturbingly, so outrageously wrong.

It was at this point, after knowing finally and forever there was no way of working with Mr. Harper, that the Opposition Parties began talking seriously about whether we could work with each other.

Coalition governments are not what Canadians are used to, and that makes Canadians anxious and uncertain. That is understandable. But coalitions are not at all uncommon in other very successful, very stable Western democracies – e.g., Germany, Netherlands, Belgium. And given the fact that we have four parties represented in the federal House of Commons and both the Liberals and Conservatives are strong enough to elect many Members (unlike a few years ago when the Conservatives were not), minority governments are now more likely, even probable. For a party to govern, it requires the support of one or more other parties, not necessarily under a formal agreement as would be the case with a Liberal-NDP Coalition, but with other-party, often Bloc, support nonetheless. That was what happened with Mr. Martin’s Government. That has been the case with Mr. Harper’s.

As we go into the next few difficult weeks, let’s keep these things in mind:

First, this would be a Liberal-NDP Coalition, led by the Liberals with a Liberal prime minister, where the Finance Minister would come from the Liberal Party, where 18 of the 24 Cabinet Ministers would be Liberals and 6 would come from the NDP. This is NOT a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois Coalition. The Bloc is NOT part of the government. Their part of the agreement is ONLY to vote for the Coalition when there are confidence votes during the next 18 months. They have no Cabinet positions. They have no say in the direction of the government or government policy any more than, as an opposition party, they do now.

Second, a coalition government, though unusual in Canadian experience, is absolutely contemplated under our Constitution. In our Parliamentary System, a government needs the support of the majority of the House of Commons. With a majority government, that support need come only from all the members of the governing party. With a minority government, there needs to be support from members of other parties as well. Mr. Harper’s Conservatives have 143 seats out of 308 in the entire House of Commons. A majority, therefore, is 155. The Coalition represents 163 seats. Just as it has been for the 141 years of our history, this Coalition would be a Government that represents the majority of the House of Commons. Again, different from what we are used to but entirely contemplated by our Constitution.

The last point –

I have said all that I’ve said above because the situation we have before us is not just about Canadians deciding between a Harper Government and a Liberal-led Liberal-NDP Coalition Government.

There is no doubt the Coalition has its work cut out for it. Between now and when Parliament resumes on Jan. 26, it must demonstrate to Canadians that it can be a strong, stable, effective Government. It needs to begin planning and setting out its priority directions like a government. It needs to be ready to govern if it is called on to govern by the end of January. That is its challenge. That is its bargain with Canadians.

But Mr. Harper has a challenge too. And his challenge, I believe, is even harder.

A prime minister sets the tone of the House of Commons. Respect gets respect. Disrespect breeds disrespect. The Prime Minister is now fighting to stay on to win a battle that need never have been fought in the first place. To preside over a Parliament whose dynamics, whose very relationships, he has poisoned and destroyed. It’s too late. This Parliament cannot work with this Prime Minister. All of us have heard the angry voices every day in the House of Commons, and now across the country. Shout and scream versus shout and scream.

Mr. Harper has scorched the earth of civility and trust for all of us. For him, it is over. He cannot be trusted. He cannot repair what is irreparable.

We need a new prime minister.

That is what I believe.

In the next days and weeks, we will be preparing ourselves for the return of Parliament on Jan. 26 with Michael as our leader. It is our job to provide to Canadians the best that is in us whether in opposition or in government. That is what we will endeavour to do.

Thank you for letting me know what’s on your mind. Thank you for the chance to let you know what’s on mine.

Sincerely,

Ken Dryden"

Sadly for Dryden, Zerkler did not buy this disingenuous response. Her reply certainly voices the sentiments shared by a great many Canadians:

"Dear Mr. Dryden;
Thank you for your answer to my letter. I do appreciate your effort and I do pay attention to your opinion.

However, I do not agree with you about many aspects of your reply. I do not accept that the Bloc is not part of the coalition because as you noted, the majority you speak of, is only with the inclusion of the numbers in the Bloc. Secondly, I do not trust a Liberal coalition with a socialist party. If Canadians wanted socialists governing them they could elect them to power at the federal level. They never have because Canadians clearly do not want the kind of legislation that the NDP stands for and would enforce. Your coalition would have to make socialist-like concessions to the NDP and perhaps concessions of another sort to the Bloc. Also, I can't say I want Liberals back in power after the long history of Liberal authoritarianism when they were in a majority position. I did not enjoy how they used their power. As for Mr. Ignatieff, I am not thrilled that after 39 years absent from Canada, he does us a favour to come back here with the "chutzpa" to offer himself for the position of prime minister, and you Liberals are willing to anoint him.

Finally, I trust Prime Minister Harper even if you do not. The fact that all of you got so excited about the proposal to cut some of your bounty from tax dollars does not surprise me. People and parties on the dole are incenced when the flow stops or is reduced. I must say that it does not upset me in the least. It speaks very badly about the the Liberal Party management skills that it somehow finds itself broke, after all those years in power and the recipient of lobbiers' huge grants to the party.

It's true that PM Harper did not keep all his promises--he has kept most of them--but then no politician that I know of has done so. Indeed, the Liberal premier of Ontario broke over 200 promises and I never heard you or any other Liberal condemn him for it. And for me, Mr. Harper has kept a very important promise. He has done what no Liberal administration has done with regard to Israel and the Palestinians. He has been unbiased and fair. The Liberals pretended to be so, but they never were, and I can recognize the difference.

So, Mr. Dryden, I hope you can appreciate my point of view and learn from it.

Sincerely,

Dr. Sally F. Zerker"

Zerker's criticism of Michael Ignatieff is short and to the point. Whether the Liberal party wants to admit it or not, the fact that Ignatieff has spent the majority of his adult life outside the country is a real disadvantage for Ignatieff.

As will be the way in which he was selected. While partisans such as Dryden will naturally want to portray Ignatieff's ascension to Liberal leader in the most positive light possible, the simple fact of the matter is that the ascension of a leader who wasn't elected through democratic means and instead simply defaulted to the leadership through the closing down of the leadership process is not something that looks good on Ignatieff or the Liberal party.

Dryden is also being dishonest when he complains that no one in Canadian political history has had to tolerate the "abuse" that Harper heaped on Dion.

Dryden may say what he wants. The Conservative party never accused Dion of being out to destroy the country, nor did they ever accuse him of wanting to stage a military takeover of the country. The Liberal party did accuse Harper of these things. some Liberals insist on continuing to do so.

Ken Dryden may pretend otherwise to his heart's content. His party's own political ads stand as the dirtiest examples of politics-via-character assassination in modern Canadian history.

Dryden may also pretend to his heart's content that Dion was simply "taking a hit to make a play". Considering the voting plans expressed by 44% of Canadians should the Coalition actually come to fruition, the Coalition may score a quick goal, but would only lose the next game in disastrous fashion.

Even if Dion's reputation for "honesty, decency and intelligence" survived the recent federal election intact, it has not survived his move to build a Coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois -- separatists who he built his reputation fighting.

Now, Stephane Dion will end his career as an individual who sacrificed that reputation by cozying up to the Bloc in the shallow name of attaining political power.

Recent events -- such as the recently-announced aid package for automakers -- have truly put the lie to the most concrete of Dryden's criticisms. The Harper government's response to the economic crisis has been cautious, but it has also been methodical.

The Harper government was not "doing nothing" to address the crisis, as Dryden insisted. The government had already introduced liquidity into the Canadian credit market, and was working with the automakers and with Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government of Ontario to establish an aid package for that province's ailing manufacturing industry.

In Dryden's other criticism of the economic update -- that it was allegedly meant simply to destroy the opposition parties -- there is nothing short of a tacit admission that a great deal of the impetus of this proposed coalition was the opposition parties simply protecting what they view as their entitlements.

A Liberal coalition with socialists and separatists -- in defiance of a duly elected government -- would have been a bitter pill for Canadians to swallow under nearly any conditions. In the simple defence of their public subsidies? Intolerable.

Furthermore, there's a big question about whether or not this coalition is really about whether the opposition parties honestly believed they could work with Stephen Harper. These opposition parties have spent the last fifteen years in this country building our political environment to a point where they simply cannot be seen working with "dangerous" conservative politicians. This coalition is simply about whether or not they can beat Harper in an election. Consecutive Conservative victories have shown that, at least for the meantime, they can't.

But the greatest mendacity of Dryden's response deals with the nature of this coalition. As Zerker herself notes, the coalition cannot justify itself under its "62% majority" mantra without the Bloc Quebecois.

Furthermore, the Bloc's participation is necessary just to keep the Coalition stable. At a mere 132 seats, the Tories' 143 votes would be enough to defeat the Coalition should the Bloc abstain from any confidence motions.

Last -- and most importantly -- the Bloc formalized its support to the Coalition in the very same agreement in which the Coalition itself was formalized. Whether it recieves Cabinet seats or not, the Bloc Quebecois is very much part of this agreement and party to it.

Dryden himself insists that the Coalition represents 163 seats. He himself is counting the Bloc's seats in with the Coalition's total. If that isn't a tacit admission that the Bloc is part of this Coalition, few Canadians would know what is.

Dryden concludes by insisting that everything that is wrong with Parliament is Harper's fault. Yet it was Dryden's then-leader, Stephane Dion, who disingenuously accused Stephen Harper of lying when Harper spoke the truth about Dion's Coalition with socialists and separatists.

Sally Zerker doesn't buy Dryden's snake oil. Most Canadians should refuse it too.

Crazy Enough to Work

A Pinball recruitment would play to typically shallow edge of Liberal politics

If the Liberal party has proven to be adept at anything, it's at catching the wave of a political trend.

In the case of a recent suggestion, it seems that Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein is taking a good hard look at Michael "Pinball" Clemons and seeing a future Liberal star candidate, if not a future Liberal leader.

"He's made a couple of extraordinary speeches to large audiences and people have been mesmerized by him," Grafstein says. "There's a thousand people there, after 10 o'clock at night. This was a sophisticated group of people who had heard a lot of speeches and you could've heard a pin drop. I was all set to go home, but I sat glued to my seat. His is the politics of hope."

It's not to hard to figure out hos Grafestein imagines Clemons: as a Barack Obama-figure-in-waiting, complete with his own take on the Audacity of Hope.

It wouldn't be the first time that the Liberals recruited a former professional athlete into the realm of politics. The Grits managed to attract Ken Dryden into their partisan fold, and he has, to date, been fairly successful. Then again, it would likely be harder for the former Montreal Canadiens great to lose an election, even if he were actually trying to do so.

Grafstein isn't the only individual with his eyes on Clemons' political services. Richard Morris, the City of Toronto's energy efficiency office manager, has him pegged for a future Mayor of Toronto.

"His influence is global. This guy could ... listen, Barack Obama has nothing on Mike Clemons, as far as I am concerned," says Morris. Of course, Morris doesn't rule out higher office yet for Clemons. "Mike's about hope, just like Obama. He needs some federal office to lead us to a broader horizon."

Clemons himself, currently the CEO of the Toronto Argonauts, isn't quite so eager just yet. For one thing, he's still in the process of getting his Canadian citizenship.

For another, he isn't always so eager to voice his opinions. That doesn't mean, however, that he doesn't have any.

"I was always a more serious person than I was represented as," says Clemons. "I'm jovial and smile all the time; I take things lightly so people think you're a lightweight. People who don't know me don't know that I have an opinion. Everything is not okay with me."

As a championship-winning professional -- as an athlete and a coach -- Clemons knows how to be successful. He knows how to win.

While the world of politics features its own specific pitfalls -- which Dryden wasn't quite able to master during his run at the Liberal party leadership -- "Pinball" Clemons has all the necessary components to be an Obama-like figure.

The Liberal talent for studying the marketing methods of American Democrats -- the Liberals closely studied the methodology used to build the political mythology around John F Kennedy and applied them to both Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau -- could quite easily transform Mike Clemons into a political powerhouse.

Canadians shouldn't be surprised to one day see "Pinball" appear in the realm of Canadian politics. The answer that has yet to be answered is: which team will he be playing for?

Tory Counter-Branding Effort Takes a Turn for the Ridiculous

Anti-family label is just plain silly

Yesterday, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounced the Liberals and NDP for allegedly being "anti-family", the Conservatives released yet another spot targeting Stephane Dion.

The ad addresses a previous statement by Stephane Dion in which he announced he would cut the Conservative's $1200 per annum childcare tax credit.

The ad insists that the choice to voters is clear "you keep the $1200, or [Dion] gets it."

Dion has denounced the claim as a "lie". Yet Dion did, in fact, say that he would cancel the Tory plan. More specifically, Dion would replace the Universal Child Care Benefit with Ken Dryden's plan for a national daycare program.

"The Dryden plan was much better. We need child care facilities to provide Canadian parents with real choice. It's a matter of social justice, but also of sound economics: child care facilities are a good way to encourage flexibility and mobility of our workforce, at a time when, often, two parents are working outside the home."

Which is obviously precisely what the ad is referring to when it warns that "[Dion] thinks he can spend [the $1200] better than you can."

Thus, there's nothing dishonest about the ad.

However, the ad's place in an effort to counter-brand Stephane Dion as "anti-family" is just plain silly. After all, Dion is a family man himself. It's unlikely that Dion himself would do anything to hurt his own family. Anything that would hurt Canadian families would inevitably hurt his own, in one way or another.

Just as Jack Layton is a family man as well, and has campaigned on numerous pro-family policies.

However, as silly as the Conservative effort to counter-brand Dion as Layton as "anti-family" (and there is a great peril in dragging politics down into the realm of vapid "anti-" labels), Dion's attempt to counter-brand the Conservatives as "liars" is doubly silly.

For one thing, the claims in the Conservative ad pan out to be true. Secondly, the base accusation of lying portrays Dion as a man incapable of debating the real issues -- instead choosing to dodge behind accusations of lies.

Stephen Harper himself insisted that the 2008 federal election would be a nasty one. With moves such as the inherently silly "anti-family" label, he's done more than his fair share to make it a nasty one.

Equally unfortunately, Stephane Dion has proven himself more than willing to oblige him.