Election Fraud Endangers Us All: Legitimacy or Bust

When a civil society looks away from evidence the vaunted Ship of State may be afloat atop a rotting hull - the abyss draws nearer. And if the rot is allowed to escape examination, keep festering, and remain immune from the only disinfectant citizens have at their disposal... the VOTE - all bets are off!  Without a demonstrably free and fair exercise of our franchise we are but nothing; nothing but a ship of fools. Inquiry now!

McFadyen blames NDP's sowing of "Fear and Deceit" for loss? Hardly.

In 1969, after losing to Ed Schreyer, defeated PC Premier Walter Weir infamously proclaimed: "The people have spoken. And the people are wrong."  Thankfully, defeated Manitoba PC leader Hugh McFadyen didn't pull a Walter Weir last night. No, instead of pulling a Weir; in defeat McFadyen pulled "a McFadyen". After being bested by Premier Greg Selinger's NDP machine, Mr. McFadyen told his shell-shocked PC supporters they'd lost because: "in Manitoba it appears that fear and deceit have won the day." Harrumph... hardly.  Despite the negative tenor of the NDP campaign (and make no mistake, it was negative) it wasn't the NDP's sowing of "fear and deceit" that sealed Hugh McFadyen's fate last night... Hugh McFadyen did it to himself.

Now did I want Hugh McFadyen to win last night? No, absolutely not. Greg Selinger deserved to win his own mandate and, having done so, I am optimistic he will govern us ably over the next four years. That being said: Do I think Hugh McFadyen could have and should have run a better campaign? Yes, absolutely.

Had Hugh McFadyen run a better and smarter election campaign he may very well have won 24-27 seats last night.  Had he run a campaign truly based on hope and "vision" he could have damaged the NDP brand and put Selinger on the defensive for the next four years. And, had McFadyen run a quality campaign, he could have remained at the helm of a PC party ideally positioned to win power in 2015. But McFadyen didn't run a dynamic campaign with a difference; instead, he ran a reactionary campaign: one that saw him call the Premier a liar on everything from the deficit to taxes, from health to Bi-pole, from crime to employment, and beyond. Instead of providing the electors with a forward looking cohesive narrative, he instead tried to instil within the voters a deep-seated "fear" of four more years of NDP rule. He preferred to bemoan the NDP's twelve year reign rather than expound clearly and concisely upon what his PC party would do differently over the span of the next four. Finally, he absolutely failed to project an image of a man who was confident in his own abilities and at peace with his party's policy platform. In short, he failed to lead.

When a losing politician publicly voices post-vote sour grapes, it leaves the whole polity with a bad aftertaste. Hugh McFadyen did this last night. By trying to place the blame for his defeat on an NDP campaign he says was rooted in "fear and deceit" McFadyen is conveniently forgetting to admit his own complicity in the same equation. True, Manitoba votes 2011 was an ugly no holds barred political campaign. But McFadyen entered the bare knuckled melee willingly, and after having swung away only to lose - its poor form for McFadyen to look at his bruised and bloody knuckles and now complain he lost because his opponents were playing by the same rules. He took the gloves off, they took the gloves off - fair is fair. When announcing his resignation as PC leader last night Hugh McFadyen need not have stooped to blaming the NDP's campaign tactics. His failure to lead was really what had sealed the deal... and his resignation said it all. It's a pity he chose to lash out, for in the end, rightly or wrongly: "The people have spoken." 

Hey Warren Kinsella! It's not always about you!

On April 27th, Warren Kinsella posted a lament about his non-relationship with Michael Ignatieff and a perceived hypocrisy regarding a possible Liberal shift on the idea of a merger between themselves & the NDP (see: "Tales from under the bus"). Kinsella included a gruesome picture, presumably of a corpse (?) under which he wrote: "Me, not exactly as pictured."

In the middle of a hard fought election campaign with the Liberals trying to unseat Stephen Harper, Warren's post struck me as unwarranted & ill-timed and, quite simply, as reeking of self-serving sour grapes.

In his post, Kinsella included a link to a year old Toronto Star article involving his oft disputed claim that he was privy to knowledge of merger talks between the two political parties in 2010 (a claim strongly denied by both Layton, Ignatieff, & their respective staff). It was a claim later characterized as "ridiculous". Hm, I was puzzled. Truth be told, in the middle of a federal election, I thought Warren was being a bit too petulant about his lot in life.

Further, I saw his post included a link to a DecisionsCanada.ca story posted that day by Althia Raj (posted 1:41pm est.), one speculating that, in fact, Ignatieff may have not ruled out a merger with NDP. A story that clearly fit with Warren's "look-at-me... see-I'm-right" narrative. However, in very short order after she posted said story (and hours before Kinsella posted its link) Althia Raj twittered: "Ignatieff came by to tell me that he is "not in this for a merger," or for a coalition, or union of the left. He is in it to win Lib govt"

Hm, ... did Kinsella choose to acknowledge this fact? No. Why? Because it didn't serve his personal purpose. Hm, ... did Kinsella choose to update his blog with the facts contained in Raj's updated story (wherein Ignatieff irrefutably rejected any merger talk)? Again no. Why? Because, again, it didn't fit Warren's narrative of 'Warren as victim' - of poor Warren being on par with an actual dead corpse in a real picture under a real bus.

So, I decided to leave a very short comment on his blog post that began: "Respectfully Warren" this election is not always about you (n.b. it included no profanity). He did not post it. So, I left a second, similar, comment. He did not post it. Finally, I posted a third and final comment:

Fat Arse says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. April 27, 2011 at 4:40 pm

Warren, once again with punk based attitude of respect... fact you barred both my original & my follow up comment tells me you are getting too thin skinned as time passes. Christos, it wasn't like I was slamming your integrity and/or calling into questioning your views. All I was doing was subtly asking you to take a step back and realize this election is not all about you and those who did you wrong. There are bigger issues at play here (especially in Winnipeg South) and if you're not man enough to hear a little chiding... cripes ... grow up the fuck up!

And I left it at that. I'd said my piece, even though I knew he would not publish it.
And so, I moved on.

Hours later, after supper, I then read this email from wkinsella@hotmail.com that had been sent to me at 4:48CST:

I don't do my web site, for no pay, to take life tips from guys who lack the balls to use their own frigging name.
Punk enough?


How odd? So my comments were disallowed because he does his "web site, for no pay" & refuses "to take life tips" (actually it was an observation- not a life tip) from a guy with no "frigging name". Okay, fair enough, it's his blog; he can do what he wants. Rules are rules. IF ONLY! See, if indeed Warren has a policy of not allowing bloggers with pseudonyms to post on his blog - fine. Problem is he doesn't. Fact is, Warren often and frequently allows those who don't use their real names to post comments (see comments on his site), ... err... just not those whose comments cut too close to the bone, to the truth about the man, a thin-skinned man, known as Warren Kinsella.

It matters if CBC's Rosie is on your trail: The Election Twitter Coverage

The Twitterverse is a funny thing.

Last night Iggy was in Winnipeg in front of a motivated and passionate crowd numbering about 1,100. He gave a barn-burner of a speech; one that clearly articulated his positions and was even newsworthy for what he had to say about the polls. Sadly, the event received very little "twitter" coverage from the national reporters tasked to Iggy's campaign. I am not blaming them - just stating a fact. The reporters in question just don't happen to twitter all that much.

On the other hand, Jack Layton is in Winnipeg this morning at a considerably smaller rally (600 people max.) giving a much less substantive speech than Iggy gave last night - but he is receiving 4-5 times the twitter attention. Especially from CBC's @RosieBarton. Again, I am not blaming Rosie. She is a fine reporter, as are many of the others from other news-outlets now covering Layton. It's just a fact that Rosie twitters more than most - so, ergo, Jack is getting more digital ink today than Iggy got last night.

Guess it has always been true. Even before the advent of the age of social media. Simple fact is and always has been that: who a news organization assigned to a given campaign greatly impacted how that campaign was portrayed to the public. J.W. Dafoe comes to mind. Not all reporters or their "inks" are created equal. And for those of us today who occasionally dwell on social media networking sites such as Twitter,the impact is both immediate, perceptible, and stark. In today's world, he who gets the most "ink" on a campaign trail is invariably the one being covered by those reporters with the most active thumbs! Is it fair to the under-served candidate trying to get his message out? Probably not. Is it biased? Absolutely not. A news organization's resources are tight, and not all campaigns can be accorded equal treatment. That being said... I do think Iggy has been under served in the last week and a half.

So what's the scoop? Fact, if an @RosieBarton or an @kady from CBC are covering your campaign you have a much better chance of getting your message out quicker & more often than those candidates who get two crotchety old dudes with bifocals, carbuncles, & arthritic thumbs assigned to their trail. In the Twitterverse that's just the way it is!

Stephen Harper is still in Contempt this #elxn41

I believe election campaigns should be fought on the issues. I believe that during an election campaign all our political leaders are obligated to engage Canada's electorate. I believe that leaders who are asking for our vote are duty bound to honestly tell us where they plan to take our country.

I believe any political leader who consciously tries to downplay and/or avoid the scrutiny of voters during an election campaign is doing democracy a disservice. Moreover, I believe any leader who attempts to limit public access to his events during a campaign is in contempt of our electoral process and, in effect, thumbing his nose at us.

I believe Stephen Harper's "one-trick pony" fear-mongering coalition message has become tiresome. I also believe he has intentionally avoided giving Canadian voters the straight goods on his party's long-term fiscal plans for our country. I believe his unending efforts to try to frighten we voters into giving him a majority- or else - once again demonstrates his utter contempt for both his opponents and our political system. I believe Stephen Harper is unworthy of a parliamentary majority. And I firmly believe it is in Canada's best interests if we hand he and his party a defeat on May 2nd.

Post Debate - Harper diminishes us still

Okay, I'll admit I was disappointed to see Stephen Harper perform semi-competently during last night's election debate. Clearly, his pre-debate prep must have included the meme: ape the calm automaton and you'll present a believable banality that keeps your base happy and will not not send centrist voters running & screaming into the arms of the Liberals. And so he did. But he still lied.

He lied when he stated the choice in this election is all about the economy. Of course, this election is partly about the economy; but mostly it is about his abject CONTEMPT for our democracy and its institutions. He lied again when he accused the opposition of triggering an "unnecessary election". This election is necessary. Now more than ever.

This election is necessary because when we exercise our collective democratic right to pronounce a decision on Mr. Harper on May 2nd, it will inform who we are and what we value. And should we misstep that fateful day, it will see us fundamentally alter our society in a way that diminishes us all as a people. Bottom line, if Harper achieves his much sought after majority on May 2nd, our future will be bleaker. Unencumbered by any real checks and balances on his power, we'll see a man already found guilty of not respecting our institutions take us down a dark path bound to weaken our country, deprive us of fairness, and lessen our freedoms. A Harper majority will, in short, lead to disaster.

So to those of you who thought Prime Minister Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party of Canada performed "okay" in last night's debate, you're right. He did "okay". But "okay" is not good enough... for he still sat there before us and lied.

For me in this election it's not about a one-off debate performance. It's about the principles and values of the different players who are asking for our trust. It's about the merits of their respective visions for our future possibilities. It's about their commitment to us as a people AND how they believe our polity should function.

This election is about what the candidates are are offering Canadians. Will they bring out the best in us? It's not about taking a path borne of cynical calculation and contrived memes. Rather, its about us having the courage to choose a path that balances the needs of the many with the avarice of the few and, a path, that is committed to protecting our rights, laws, freedoms, and the integrity of our institutions. It's about taking a path Stephen Harper is not offering each and every time he stands before us and lies about why we are having this election. We are having this election because it is needed to combat his CONTEMPT. We are having this election to pronounce our judgment on a man who think us fools and who really believes we're willing to overlook his lack of integrity. We are having this election because, frankly, there has to be a better way to run this country called Canada!

Good Morning My Dear Premier - Happy 2011!

So my Premier, OUR Premier, OUR DEAR Premier,

Were you up all night,
blasted out of your tree
throwing darts
at pics
of Wee-Hughie?

Or were you,
dream fighting
PC demons
in your personal hell;
fearing you couldn't
answer the bell?

Well I hope you slept
cause 2011 is here,
and you need be
in fighting shape
in this,
OUR election year

(ohhh, how exciting!)

Okay, DEAR Premier,
on this frigid morn'
take a look in the mirror
one that isn't forlorn.

A good look I say
this cold New Year's Day
time to take stock
of what you have to say

Hey MY Premier
don't turn away
you need to do this
to do it today!

See those eyes,
see that brow?
NOW
you tell me HOW ...

HOW on earth
are you gonna win
if ya don't get yourself
some better spin?

The time is nigh,
the time is here
Makeover! Makeover!
And greet the New Year!