About TDH

Archived
Commentaries

Past Projects

FAQ

Links

Contact

March, 2005 Archives

March 31, 2005 - Frank McKenna's new approach to making waves down in Washington is very appealing to TDH Strategies.

Yes, he really should get his messaging straight with Paul Martin, who has contradicted McKenna on a couple of occasions since the former New Brunswick premier took over Ambassadorial duties just over a month ago.

On the other hand, the good cop/bad cop type of approach might actually be politically advantageous at times, as the only thing that Washington appreciates in its own backyard is a strong stand - testicular fortitude, if you will.

Regardless, McKenna is on the right track when he talks about Canada developing its own meat processing industry, for example.  That is real economic policy that the Americans would be forced to sit up and take notice of.  If linkage isn't the answer because of its abrasive nature, than the creation of made in Canada solutions, including the expansion of trade relationships with other countries (as Industry Minister David Emerson has been bandying about for many months now) could be a smart and effective alternative.

After this initial campaign to correct the misconceptions about our country in the American media, the true test for McKenna is how much his friendly relationship with the Bush family is going to make a difference to Canada-U.S. relations.  Fly fishing and international diplomacy are two entirely different ballgames.

March 30, 2005 - Goodness, if the EU is fooled so easily by Paul Wolfowitz in his lobbying to become the head of the World Bank, then George W. Bush might actually have a shot at convincing them that he too, like Bill Clinton, is a road scholar (a side of the road scholar? Maybe).

Mr. Wolfowitz said after the talks that he was “eager to take on this challenge” of heading the bank, adding he would make fighting poverty his top priority.

“Helping people lift themselves out of poverty is truly a noble mission,” said Mr. Wolfowitz.

Hmmm...is this the same Wolfowitz who used to preach this kind of logic?:

"These people are not fighting because they're poor.  They're poor because they fight all the time." - Wolfowitz, Congressional Testimony, 6/6/96

"We hear a lot of talk about the root causes of terrorism.  Some people seem to suggest that poverty is the root cause of terrorism.  It's a little hard to look at a billionaire named Osama bin Laden and think that poverty drove him to it." Wolfowitz, 11/15/2002

And yet, the EU has now been appeased.  Why, one might ask?  Well listen to German Development Aid Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul:

"...Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said she was encouraged by what she heard, adding that many ministers around the table pushed Mr. Wolfowitz on his neo-conservative reputation as a hawk in the Bush administration.

“This is the past he has,” Ms. Wieczorek-Zeul said. “But it's also clear that this is for him a new beginning, and we judge him according on what he said today.”

Yes, how very silly to actually consider one's record and past actions (including being a complete warmonger against some of the poorest people in the world) when being contemplated for a position of this scope and magnitude.

March 30, 2005 - Sure the latest revelations from the sponsorship scandal are infuriating - attending Ottawa Senators games, pro wrestling events and Neil Diamond concerts, all on the taxpayers' coin.

But listening to these guys justify the past is a riot...funny as hell, as far as TDH Strategies is concerned:

"We had to make sure the food was ready, make sure the mascot would visit the box," Mr. Gosselin said. Mr. Parent mentioned having to make small talk with the guests' wives.

"It takes work. Some people require more attention than others," Mr. Gosselin said.

Having to chat up the spoiled wives of men far too rich to pay for their own tickets to the game? Oh, the humanity!

March 29, 2005 - The legislative game of chicken currently being played out over the Liberal government's Kyoto plan is puzzling on a number of fronts, for all parties involved.  So, here goes a stream of consciousness rant on the true meaning behind what is turning into a very public, albeit manufactured, pissing match.

First, with today's news that eight major environmental groups have now joined the oil patch, major industry, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives in denouncing the government's Kyoto roadmap, it demonstrates how poorly this policy has been planned and managed by the federal government.  This is one of the most significant decisions that this government has taken in many years, and yet the entire circus now developing seems as though it was nothing more than a fleeting blip on the Liberal radar.

The NDP and BQ cannot be assumed to oppose Kyoto on its own merit, as both parties are in complete support of implementation.  Their inability to support the budget bill can be considered little more that political posturing to show dissent with the Liberals, and so by virtue of association, the included pieces of Kyoto-related legislation might fall victim to the grandstanding.

The Conservatives, however, seem genuine in the content of their opposition to the bill.  The Liberals have sprung elements of their Kyoto plan as complete surprises to the House, and are trying to sneak through several policies which have not been properly debated.  This is entirely the fault of the Conservatives, however, who ignorantly and immediately came out in blanket support of the budget not three weeks ago.

So, having created a situation where the Liberals feel as though they can get away with murder on this budget bill, the Conservatives are in an extremely awkward position, seemingly changing their initial pledge not to topple the minority government over the budget.  It seems as though the Conservatives themselves are unsure of where they are headed (what a surprise), as Newfoundland and Labrador Tory MP Norman Doyle came out yesterday assuring the media that the budget would pass with Tory support, COMPLETELY contradicting his own leader's recent "tough" stand on the allegedly hidden carbon tax.

On the other side of the house, the government's Separatist in wolf's clothing, Transport Minister Jean Lapierre, gave what many are deeming a maverick interview over the weekend, when on CTV's Question Period, he admitted that his party would be afraid to go to the polls in the province of Quebec at this particular juncture.

To which TDH Strategies warns, don't believe the hype.

While this guy is not the sharpest political mind in the heap, this outburst seems a little too convenient for it to be considered shocking or in any way a surprise.  In spite of the Gomery Commission's damaging revelations in the Montreal component of the inquiry, the Liberals do not fear massive political retribution from Quebec voters because a) the majority of their current Quebec seats are natural Liberal ridings and b) any losses that might occur would be offset by regions of the country furious with an opposition that dragged everyone back to the polls. 

Take for example the 7 non-Liberal MPs in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia, who would pay a severe price for bringing down parliament over the budget, and with it, the billion dollar oil and gas deal signed by both provinces with the federal government.

No one wants to go to the polls...that is clear.  However, the ones likely to suffer the least if this budget bill fails are the Liberals, who seem well positioned to strengthen their tenuous minority situation should an election occur in the very near future.

March 28, 2005 - If ever there was proof that the Terri Schiavo circus down south was purely about politics, here is it.

The gall of this man to stand up there and make these comments as Republican House Leader:

"Congress has a legislative and moral duty to do what we can to protect her.  Her life is being threatened, and we have it in our power to act on her behalf. Every human life deserves at least that much."    

is so disgustingly disingenuous, in consideration of his family history.

Funny how Delay will not speak to the press about his own father's passing, but won't shut-up about the woman he is fighting to save.

The way that both sides of the debate have politicized this poor woman is absolutely shameless.

The hallowed acreage of a ranch in Crawford, Texas has for many years served as the promised land for American apologists angry that George W. Bush has never seemed to like us enough to extend an invitation.

The absence of a Canadian presence in the land where executions are as plentiful as cowboy hats is about to end, however, as Paul Martin leaves today for a summit with Bush and his favourite house guest, Mexican president Vincente Fox.  While there is no word yet as to who gets the top bunk, Martin's advisors have apparently secured the first opportunity to give official greetings and kiss the ring of the American president.

All joking aside, this scenario seems very reminiscent of the opening scene from The Godfather, where guests waited with tentative anticipation for five minutes alone with Don Corleone. 

From a purely political standpoint, Bush sits as a wealthy man, rich with political capital, while Fox functions as a lame-duck president unable to run for office again and Martin struggles to keep afloat amidst a minority Parliament.  Couple this fact with Martin's recent conduct in regards to the missile defence shield (where he didn't have the courage to tell Bush of his decision face-to-face, instead relying on Pierre Pettigrew to deliver the news to Condoleeza Rice the very next day), and this meeting is already shaping up to be much ado about nothing.

With DFAIT officials already telling the media not to expect any "big-bang announcements" on a number of pressing policy fronts, the message being sent is that a smile, a handshake, and Mr. Martin being bestowed with the title of a "good, straight forward fella" would signify progress.  Which is fine, considering the Bush administration's current disdain for a Canadian government that only seems steadfast in wavering on important issues. 

Over the past month, Paul Martin has done his best to weather the damage done to his image by the scathing "Mr. Dithers" editorial in The Economist.  And, since its publication, Martin to his credit has delivered an extremely well received budget that fulfills many campaign commitments, gone through a Liberal biennial convention that gave him a resounding endorsement, and finally demonstrated to the country that he was able to take a sovereign path independent of American political pressures.  That being said, his approach better be fine tuned before he tests his newfound resolve down in the Lone Star State.

One hopes that Martin is finally getting comfortable enough in his own skin to exercise the right of a Prime Minister to engineer bi-lateral relations with the United States premised equally on mutual respect and the right of refusal.  Because in spite of George W. Bush's gun-slinging tendencies, this combination is the ultimate sign of maturity for a leader, for a nation, and most importantly, for a friendship. 

March 21, 2005 - To those who are not aware of Toronto hip hop artist K-OS, let TDH Strategies do you a favour.  This man traverses musical categories and genres like few others on the Canadian music scene, and in this website's humble opinion, is a genius.

Which makes this story of a CBC commissioned collaboration with the CBC Radio orchestra an exciting prospect.  And, if in the process he has pushed boundaries and pissed off a couple of classical music traditionalists, as the above article intimates, then this song should be spectacular.

In the meantime, take a listen to one of K-OS' most beautiful tracks:

Patience

You can thank TDH later.

March 21, 2005 - It was such a joke to listen to Ezra Levant claim that his party was united on Global's Final Round segment yesterday, confirmed particularly after reading his vicious attack column against Peter McKay and Belinda Stronach this morning.  Take this quote for example:

March 18, 2005 - There's blood on the dance floor, and they haven't even begun to dance.

Far more than the civil war between the long-latent "progressive" wing of the Conservative Party of Canada and those that want to remain in the mould of the old Reform party, this rage shown by Peter McKay could be the proverbial straw that broke this decrepit camel's back.

This matter goes to the crux of McKay's defence of his deal with Stephen Harper, which always propagated that there would be no two-tier type of membership because each riding, irrespective of sign-up numbers, would be weighted equally.  Now, Mr. McKay is going to have to fight hard to convince the country that his side of the equation did not get the short end of the stick.

Regardless, one of TDH Strategies' closest political confidantes (a self-admitted left-leaning Liberal) confided his fears yesterday about the rising tide of the religious right, and how this element was gradually taking a larger foothold in Canada.  He was firmly convinced that this fanaticism was becoming more prominent in communities across the nation, and as a result he laid out scenarios of deeply divided parliaments where minority governments would require the broad support of three parties to form a majority.  It was also thought that Beaker's recent policy pronouncements were attempts to not only tap into this constituency, but also to curry favour with an American administration that, as was argued to me, has more power than ever to effect the political decision-making of Canadian voters.

Let TDH Strategies quickly put both of these notions to rest, John.

First, as was said yesterday, Canadians still have a relatively narrow tolerance for any government policy that strays outside of the comfortable middle.  In spite of the contentiousness of the current topics now galvanising many in the movement you speak of (marijuana, same-sex marriage), these must still be considered as policies that have well thought out by a Liberal government that understands where they can curry votes from, and where they cannot.  And, as a result of this calculation, the public will eventually accept both of these directions that the government is heading in and continue to vote Liberal.

In essence, that is the bottom line to this entire discussion.  A movement may be very successful in rallying behind a particular cause, yet without a political party to stand behind, the push will never infiltrate the public consciousness.  After this weekend, there really could be nary an entity that these types of grassroots organizations can throw their political muscle behind.

In regards to Beaker, if the theory is that he is trying to win the Liberal leadership and become Prime Minister by currying favour with George W. Bush et al., which would then lead to electoral success by tapping into this supposed conservative political phenomena, it demonstrates to this website that our favourite Muppet is in big trouble.

Beaker does not have the royal jelly to convince the Liberal membership to stand behind him, and after this past week of outrageousness, he has forever shot himself in the foot.  Once again, political desperation rather than sound political judgement has driven Beaker down this very slippery slope.

It is a shame that the Conservative party dropped the "progressive" label it once so proudly attested to, because now, and for the considerable future, it continues to serve as one of the key characteristics that any federal government must possess.

And at this particular juncture, Stephen Harper wouldn't understand the word if 1000 dictionaries hit him over the head.

March 17, 2005 - No new information can really be offered about yesterday's Air India verdict that hasn't already been covered by at least fifty other media outlets.  So, this perspective comes straight from the heart.

To watch the faces of those families who wanted their voices heard in the follow-up press conference was very hard, and very heartbreaking.  Those that did speak, however, showed class, dignity and grace far beyond what could rightfully be expected of anyone receiving such a monumental disappointment.  As one individual uttered into the microphone yesterday, this is another tragedy that might take just as long to recover from.  

What was particularly telling was the fact that so many delivered statements were so eloquently thought out, which seems to signal that beneath their immediate shock, Justice Ian Bruce Josephson's decision was something that had long been prepared for. 

Watching the local evening news yesterday turned out to be even more disconcerting after viewing images of the Malik family cheering their patriarch as he rolled into the garage in a flashy new Mercedes.  Chanting prayers from the Sikh faith while clapping and holding up big balloons in front of several cameras was as crass and you can get.  And yet, the family issued this statement following their joyous celebrations:

"Our family deeply sympathizes with the families of those that died in this horrific tragedy.  The anger and sadness are going through because of today's decision should be directed towards the RCMP and Crown.  The had given these families a false hope of justice by proceeding with a case without merit."

Malik's lawyer had it right when he told a media scrum that there were no winners in this verdict.  It is a shame that the Maliks couldn't have been as discreet when so many on the other side of the ruling were so clearly suffering.

The federal government and more specifically Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan are being non-committal about holding a public inquiry, which is fine considering that when the question was being asked, the judge was still in the process of reading his decision.  However, for McLellan to state that she could "not see any benefit" to holding one is absolutely offensive, particularly when one considers how quickly this Liberal government initiated an inquiry when the sponsorship scandal jeopardized their own political fortunes.  They also hummed and hawed before finally agreeing to one for the deportation and torture case of Maher Arar.

The Canadian government has spent 20 years trying to distance itself from the Air India bombing, which had a direct correlation to the sloppy manner in which this failed investigation was carried out.  Now is the time that the whole country deserves answers, and nothing less than a public inquiry will be acceptable.

May God ease the pain of the victims' families.

March 17, 2005 - This website is political genius, and the Young Liberals at their best (be sure to check out the victims page...it's a riot).  As long as the mini-grits aren't serving as mindless cheerleaders for Paul Martin, the Liberal Biennial Convention and this kind of satire demonstrates that when they want to, they can be a political force as powerful as any other in the country.

March 16, 2005 - The just-announced Air India verdict of not guilty for suspects Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri is outrageous, and in the purest meaning of the word, infuriating.

Justice Ian Bruce Josephson's verdict, which is still being read as this is written, isn't the problem though.  The RCMP and CSIS functioned as little more than a team of incompetent fools on this case, both before and after the bombing.  250 investigators, a $130 million investigation, wiretap tapes destroyed, a trial  explosion witnessed by agents just weeks before the actual bombing, etc., etc., etc...and this is what the families of 331 innocent victims get after 20 years of torture.

Regardless of what Justice John Gomery has done to the trust Canadians have in public inquiries, this is the only route that this ongoing tragedy can now take. 

This is a very sad day in Canadian history.

March 15, 2005 - TDH Strategies does not mean to harp, but after reading these types of comments from John Manley in his "Fortress America" press conference yesterday, there is only one question to ask: HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT TO BECOME PRIME MINISTER?

From this point forward, Manley will be referred to by his Frank magazine persona whenever mentioned on this website:

March 15, 2005 - After years of courting Carole Taylor to run for his neo-con outfit mysteriously called the Liberals, Premier Gordon Campbell has finally knocked a home run out of the park with Taylor's decision to run as a candidate in the upcoming provincial election.  She has resigned her duties as the chair of the CBC effective immediately.

It seems like a very curious choice, though, as all of the high profile federal Liberals like Christy Clark (the former Deputy Premier), Gary Collins (the former Finance Minister) and now Geoff Plant (the outgoing Attorney General) have jumped off the ship.  As well, the feds have been courting her for close to a decade, and had she accepted, Taylor would have been as powerful as the new political boss of BC David Emerson is now.

With Solicitor General Rich Coleman waiting in the wings to take over after Campbell steps down in the next 2 years, the BC Liberal party seems determined to head down a path that only those that built the Reform party in this province have dared to tread on.  For at least one day, however, and for the first time in many years, Carole Taylor gives Gordon Campbell a tangible reason to refer to his government as "Liberal."

March 15, 2005 - Barring a) George W. Bush stepping down to raise horses in Crawford, Texas b) Jean Chretien coming out of retirement to rescue the Liberal party or c) Justice John Gomery (Pyle) starting to scream "Gaaaaaawwwwwwwlly" before each day of inquiry proceedings, this will be TDH Strategies favourite story of the year.

Not only did he arrange the arrest with U.S. federal agents, but he also tipped off local media so that the entire drive across the border was covered inch by inch by get this...a CTV news helicoptor (amongst many other reporters).

TDH Strategies knows a couple of politicians that could really use this guy's savvy with the press.  And hey, he would be dual-purposed by the ability to dig up dirt on your political opponents, when for example, none of your own attacks are able to garner any traction.  Stephen Harper, are you listening?

March 14, 2005 - It seems extremely odd that John Manley is widely considered as the front runner to be the next Prime Minister, when it is clear that Canada's sovereignty is not a priority in his race to the bottom line.

The Task Force on the Future of North America, which as mentioned on March 2 by TDH Strategies is co-chaired by Manley, has just released a statement this morning stating that:

"Canada, the United States and Mexico should become a single trading space surrounded by a strong security barrier to ensure North America's prosperity,"

and that 

"the plan should include a three-country border pass with biometric identifiers so people can move around easily." (to read the complete Toronto Star article, click here).

Manley's group also wants to see a joint strategy to protect North American energy supplies (TRANSLATION: cheap energy resources for the Unites States),  common defence and security measures (TRANSLATION: no room for Canada to make independent decisions of national importance), and a system of common tariffs on every imaginable product (TRANSLATION: less control for the Canadian government to regulate what goes in and out of the country).

There was a pretty heated discussion going on at Blogs Canada over the weekend, trying to galvanize the blogging community into petitioning the Canadian government over the issue TDH Strategies took up directly below in this website's March 11 commentary.  There seems to be a growing backlash over a U.S. administration that completely ignores free and fair trade practices, and a Canadian government that seems to always act the pansy in these disputes.

What makes these particular policy perspectives even less appealing comes from the fact that the task force is comprised of Council on Foreign Affairs (CFA) (one of the most influential think tanks in Washington), the Task Force along with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and the Mexican Council on Foreign Affairs - all well financed corporate interests from each country.  These are NOT the voices of the people.

Everyone was asking last weekend why John Manley didn't show up for the Liberal Biennial Convention.  Well, if it wasn't an attempt to avoid the tomatoes and other foreign objects Liberal delegates would have thrown at him, then it was definitely the fear of his American corporate masters condemning him for being too "Liberal," the most evil word in contemporary American lexicon.

March 14, 2005 - Something about this story seems amazingly Mafioso:

"Ontario's casino boss has slammed the operators of the new Niagara Falls casino, saying the province has "serious concerns" about the way the $1 billion gaming palace is being run."

Take out the government gobblety-gook and legal mumbo jumbo, and the letter reads something like this:

"Yo Paulie, the slots ain't workin out, and you ain't pullin' yo' weight.  Get the money moving, or we're gonna have to make a trip down to the Falls...and you don't want to be let go when we get there, now do ya?"

March 11, 2005 - TDH Strategies cannot believe the gall that the U.S. lumber lobby has in asking Canada to drop all current litigation while a new round of negotiations on the softwood dispute begins as a result of yet another Canadian proposal.

So negotiate with us in good faith, but stop pursuing action on the numerous WTO and NAFTA decisions that have gone Canada's way.

TDH Strategies says "TIMBER" to that BS request.

Also, other than a matter of expediency to get some kind of deal done (a negotiating stance that seems to have more to do with politics than sound trade policy), why is Canada offering to tax our own producers when every international trade dispute mechanism seems to concur that we are in the right?

The Canadian government has done a relatively poor job of settling this long-standing inequity, and now is conceding defeat in their opening salvo rather than making use of the evidence favouring the Canadian position.

What's next?  Are we going to impose duties on Mother Nature before we are pressured into selling our highly-coveted resource of fresh water across the 49th parallel?  Or to make it easier on the American fast food industry, maybe we can scrub, peel, chop and fry our P.E.I. potatoes before they end up in the bellies of the most obese nation on earth.

Ridiculous.

March 11, 2005 - TDH Strategies has already heard from one friend this morning who got screwed in the Jetsgo fiasco that is burning up phone lines across the country. 

It isn't particularly surprising that they flopped, considering their unbelievable "fly for a loonie" weekend promotions that the company has been running since last fall.

What is suspect, however, is how this airline could have been advertising seat sales as late as last week, and then all of a sudden packed up in the middle of the night.

Here's Jetsgo's president Michael Leblanc commenting on the development:

"We deeply regret that this had to happen. The decision to cease operations was only taken after difficult deliberation."

The decision to run those losing promotional deals up until the last moment didn't seem have much consideration behind it, so why should anyone believe Leblanc when he says the shutting down of the airline came about differently?

The Canadian Transportation Agency better take a long hard look at the business practices of the short-lived Jetsgo.  Greyhound Air lasted about the same timeframe within the marketplace, although at least they had cool advertising campaigns featuring dogs marking their territory. 

Unfortunately in this current situation, the only ones getting pissed on are Jetsgo customers.

March 10, 2005 - Putting this link up again, because it is the coolest thing on the Internet (aside from TDH Strategies' political rants, of course : ). 

March 10, 2005 - TDH Strategies understands that Stephen Harper and his Conservative MPs did not want to force an election, and therefore were not willing to vote down the budget yesterday.  If they had done so, they would have been severely punished by an electorate that has no desire to go back to the polls.  Fair enough.

But did they really think that a complete abstention from the vote was the most politically advantageous way they could have handled this situation? 

First, Harper failed to lobby any criticism towards the government after the budget was unveiled, stating that its content was "pretty close to the things we were advocating in the last election."

And now, when it comes to actually voting on the budget, he and his party sit on their hands and choose to serve as non-participants to the process. 

What this website fails to understand is why the Conservatives didn't make the appropriate arrangements to ensure the continuation of Parliament without demonstrating complete complacency.  It would not have been hard to show some kind of opposition, as several members of Mr. Harper's caucus could have voted against the budget as long as enough of his other MPs didn't show up for the vote.  Then at least the country, and more particularly those citizens that have little more than a cursory understanding of the political process, would have been able to see images of some Conservative members standing up and voting against the government.

But alas, "the Conservative caucus debated a mix of no votes and abstentions, but rejected the idea as too complicated," according to the Globe and Mail.

Clearly, the mathematical theory behind addition and subtraction can be very difficult.  No wonder people tune out of politics!

This is just a ridiculous explanation, and quite frankly, pretty pathetic for the party that supposedly functions as Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

Government in waiting?  Everyday it becomes apparent that the Conservatives more closely resemble a government abating.

March 9, 2005 - Rapid fire today:

     ● This story is just horrible.  Running someone over for $12.30 of gas
        is unbelievable enough, but then dragging a man under your car
        for 7.5 kilometres WHILE YOU HEAR THE VICTIM SCREAMING (as was
        reported on the evening news by one of the perpetrator's friends)
        is just plain evil.  TDH Strategies hopes they nail these little bastards
        in adult court.
     ● So the Bloc Québécois backed off of their empty threats about
        bringing down the government yesterday, voting against the
        Conservative Party's amendment to the budget.  This was for one
        reason, and one reason only:  in spite of what polling and a wide
        range of political pundits and colleagues to this website say to the
        contrary, the 54 seats that the BQ currently occupies within the
        House of Commons is the best result they can achieve.  Whether it
        is called in the coming months, soon after the release of Gomery's
        tainted report, or in the spring of 2006, mark these words:  the BQ
        will lose seats in the next election.
     ● Both from the perspective of a country that needs immigration
        over the coming decades to maintain growth and vibrancy, and
        simply from those Canadians that understand how truly lucky we
        really are, this is great news.
     ● For every small company out there, this story of the contract
         awarded to Top Aces Consulting Inc. out of Montreal should be
         pinned up to every cubicle, every bulletin board, and every
         boardroom.  It also shows that companies like Bombardier have
         likely lost their competitive edge as a result of surviving off the
         public trough for so many years.
     ● In response to Warren Kinsella's rant and the National Post's
        editorial from this morning, yesterday's TDH Strategies commentary
        had absolutely nothing to do with Monte Solberg's bravery in using
        a blog to convey his views to the public...in fact, it is a decision for
        which he should be commended and admired for.  On the other
        hand, the candour in his attempt to provide a satirical criticism
        does not insulate him from his own words.  While the knuckle
        dragging comment has been completely misinterpreted, using the
        civil rights movement analogy of "cattle segregationists who won't
        let Canadian cattle drink from the same watering hole as
        American cattle" IS NOT FUNNY, nor appropriate.  If in this case TDH
        Strategies is being sickeningly  "politically correct" to some, then so
        be it...but in the opinion of this website, that comparison crossed a
        line of decency.  Solberg is certainly not a bigot, but in this situation,
        he did make a mistake.

March 8, 2005 - The business of blogging can be a fresh and innovative way for an elected official to communicate with voters, largely because it allows politicians to show a personal side, which tends to resonate better than the manufactured images and messages typically delivered by traditional politics.

That is, unless you're a Conservative Member of Parliament.

Monte Solberg has always struck this website as being a level-headed and articulate parliamentarian that consistently brings forward poignant attacks against the government.  In fact, when Mr. Solberg first began his blog in February, TDH Strategies found it to be a good read, precisely because he was able to outline well-considered public policy points and still display a personality equally capable of humility and humour.

Unfortunately, Solberg recently strayed from this formula and showed that there certainly isn't a monopoly on being offensive within the Conservative caucus.  After reading his entry from March 6, everyone now knows that Monte can nauseate with the best of them.

Making light of the civil rights movement and the efforts of Martin Luther King to make a political point about Paul Martin's stand on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is unacceptable.

Reference this paragraph from Solberg's commentary:

"Cattle producers should have sent Paul a letter telling him that they just discovered that an open border is a "fundamental human right" that is protected by the Charter. Then Paul Martin Luther King would have had no choice but to at least mention it in his speech and maybe even confront those American cattle segregationists who won't let Canadian cattle drink from the same watering hole as American cattle."

Whatever your stance on the same-sex marriage debate, comparing the historical injustices suffered by African-Americans to cattle is sickening.

Solberg has now offered a particularly weak rebuttal on his website in an attempt to downplay the whole affair:

"Then there are those joyless people who spend their lives looking for reasons to be outraged. These are the people who are offended by everything. What an awful way to pass your days. I really do feel sorry for them.

Finally there are those who feign outrage. This is the camp that my friends Scott Reid and Marlene Jenning fall into. They are real pro's at the outrage game. They actually get the joke but pretend that they don't. They are outraged for the cameras and then they go back to their desk, eat a muffin and read the paper."

No matter how you try and spin this Monte, what you refer to as "satire" doesn't in any way come close to being witty or funny.

First Stephen Harper uses the Holocaust and the internment of Japanese Canadians as political tools to advance his policy on same-sex marriage (refer to TDH Strategies' commentary from February 18), and now this.

Canadians wait in tepid anticipation of which minority group is next on the Conservative hit list.

March 8, 2005 - Politicos have always known that having an opposite spectrum provincial government in power always means better results at the polls for any federal government, and so Dalton McGuinty's victory in the fall of 2003 was never particularly good news for Paul Martin.   So in spite of upcoming peace talks between Queen's Park and Ottawa, after last year's disastrous provincial budget (you know, the one that entirely cancelled out the "I won't raise your taxes" campaign pledge) and calls for $5 billion in additional federal funding in advance of a spring budget that will deliver a substantial deficit (representing another election promise down the tubes), one wonders how many federal Liberals will be silently cheering for new Conservative leader John Tory in the by-election slated for March 17th.

March 7, 2005 - U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci is an ass, but in regards to ballistic missile defence, he spoke the truth on CTV's Question Period yesterday:

"We were given that impression [that Canada was going to be joining] in a very direct way for a long time."

Paul Martin, on the other hand, has been caught with his pants down in his denials of this claim, after the Ottawa Citizen published details of a secret government document:

"Shortly before last year's federal election, the Liberal government was leaning towards joining the U.S. ballistic missile defence program, pledging to explain its views "clearly and early" to avoid any misunderstandings with Washington, says a draft government document.

Discussion of the contentious issue is contained in a May 13, 2004 draft copy of the government's as-yet-unreleased international policy statement, which has been obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.

In a list of items that "Canada will do" to bolster relations with the United States, the draft states: "participate in the BMD program, and seek to ensure that Norad's existing missile warning and attack assessment role is fully incorporated into the BMD mission."

Even more damaging to Martin's recent spin on his decision is this passage from the document:

"Canada must ensure that it clearly explains its goals and why we pursue them. There should be 'no surprises,' especially on issues where we differ. We will reinforce the perception that Canada is an innovative and reliable partner.

Where our views diverge, Canada will defend its views, explaining our position to our American partners clearly and early. In these cases, we will work with the U.S. in bridging the gap, including the management of our differences."

Not all is lost, however.  Read below to see how Paul Martin can use this past weekend's Liberal love-in to his advantage.

March 7, 2005 - TDH Strategies received an email yesterday asking this simple question: "Is 88% enough?"

One suspects that this reader was expecting a rant on how the Liberal Biennial Convention's 88% endorsement of Paul Martin was somehow rigged by David Herle et al., or that it isn't representative of the entire party.

On the contrary, 88% is a total that Mr. Martin should be extremely happy with, and more importantly, a figure that the Prime Minister can really start to build on if he and his advisors play their cards right.

Rather than be compared to the last leadership review received by Jean Chretien (91% in 1998), Martin's political currency should only be gauged against what happens at the Conservative Party of Canada's first ever policy convention in 2 weeks, which will also include a vote on leadership.

In this regard, Martin's result will represent a far superior sign of unity.  Because for all of Martin's indecisiveness and stumbling since December, 2003, nothing can compare to the disastrous fortunes that Stephen Harper has brought upon the Conservative movement in this country.

Whereas a newly unified right of centre party combined with a scintillating sponsorship scandal represented genuine hope for the Conservatives last spring, Harper's lacklustre performance over the last year has divided his membership, and relegated Conservative values to the fringes of Canadian society.

Is this to suggest that there aren't millions of voters out there that resonate with traditional Conservatives ideals?  Absolutely not.  But when you prematurely begin to speak of winning a majority government at the mid-point of an election campaign, accuse your opponents of supporting child pornography, go into hibernation and refuse contact with the media, make unilateral decisions on highly contentious policy issues, and use historical suffering and injustices as a political tool, you replace opportunity with irrelevancy. 

From behind the scenes, word is leaking out that Paul Martin's real reason for refusing participation in ballistic missile defence was an attempt to improve Liberal fortunes at the polls, particularly in Quebec.  From a purely political point of view, this is a smart way to go.  If nothing else, this weekend's convention demonstrated that the policies emanating from the Liberal party have the ability to really capture the attention and support of the nation.

Martin must now demonstrate to Canadians that he can really perform up to the expectations that he actively created for himself through his accumulated years of leadership campaign rhetoric.

"Say what you will do, and then do what you say"...in terms of opposition, Martin's biggest challenge in achieving the majority government he so desperately covets will be in how well he can follow this simple mantra.

March 5, 2005 - The Liberal convention, and more specifically Paul Martin's speech last night, aren't being particularly well received by the media:

"It's a sign of Paul Martin's hard times that the Prime Minister is reaching out to a party that only 15 months ago he held in the palm of his hand." - Jim Travers, Toronto Star

"Mr. Martin spent much of the speech looking back at Liberal governments' fiscal accomplishments of the 1990s.  For a speech to a convention dedicated to exploring new and forward-looking policy options, his address was conventional and clearly election oriented." - Canadian Press

"Despite touching on same-sex marriage, Martin shied away in his address from other contentious issues including ballistic missile defence, the sponsorship scandal and the marijuana bill.

"(Martin) saw the polls showing that Quebeckers . . . were strongly against it. And he knew that the convention, he was told, was going to vote against it. So in a space of a week, Martin changed his mind, I'm told, about missiles." - Craig Oliver, CTV

"The mood of this convention has differed sharply from the coronation wave that Mr. Martin caught at the 2003 leadership vote, with smaller crowds, less celebration and only quiet debate." Globe and Mail

After reading about this laundry list of misfortunes that have befallen Mr. Martin's time as Prime Minister, TDH Strategies asks this question: Are Martin's troubles all the result of bad luck?

Well, readers should really give this amazing profile of Martin's leadership style by Susan Delacourt a read before they offer an answer. 

Failing that, here are two pertinent quotes of interest.  First, one taken directly from Paul Martin's mouth:

"I make a decision when I have to make it. And I won't make the decision before. Normally what I would want to do would be to begin the debate well ahead of time, because my own view is that in nine decisions out of 10, if you argue them out, the decision becomes very evident."

The second from Delacourt:

"The frustrating thing about the BMD and same-sex decisions, for Martin's friends and foes alike, was the Prime Minister's lack of an explanation for the conclusions he reached. He could tell you why he chose the moment to announce that Canada wasn't participating in missile defence with the U.S. but not what made him back away in the first place. He could chart the progress of court rulings that made same-sex-marriage recognition inevitable but not why or whether he'd embraced the concept personally.

In both cases, Martin can explain why the decision became obvious to him but not why it should be obvious to others. In both cases, he hasn't yet attempted to lead or shape public opinion."

That about says it all, folks.

March 4, 2005 - Man does TDH Strategies miss Lloyd Axworthy.  Read this brilliant letter to Condi Rice to see why.

March 4, 2005 - Biennial Convention Update!  Dan McTeague, MP for Pickering-Scarborough East, is calling for an end to the marijuana bill in light of the tragic deaths of four RCMP officers in the raid on an Alberta grow-op.  The BC Young Liberals are looking at taking their resolution for a tougher stance on grow-ops and combining it with the Alberta Young Liberal resolution to legalize pot entirely. Liberal leadership hopeful Martin Cauchon is expected to come out today at 3pm Eastern and make a statement supporting an end to prohibition.

The battle lines are drawn...should be very interesting.

March 4, 2005 - The Liberal Party of Canada would have the rest of the country believe that their membership now stands together, and that the 2005 Biennial Convention is the manifestation of this new unity.

TDH Strategies warns readers not to believe the hype, because nothing could be farther from the truth.

Chantal Hébert has a wonderful description of Liberal delegates from her column in this morning's Toronto Star.

"It is an open secret that many of them will be holding their noses as they pass a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister this weekend."

First, there are many long-time Liberals (including the author of this website) who are sitting this convention out, largely because they feel that for the time being, the party doesn't welcome their viewpoints.

Do not mistake the left-leaning nature of some of the resolutions emanating from the floor of the convention (legalization of marijuana, decriminalization of prostitution, support for same-sex marriage) to mean that the party has shifted back to being a big tent.  This is an organization still under lock and key by the forces that swept the current Prime Minister to power, and there is still plenty of blood on the floor from their past conquests (meaning, they continue to enjoy trampling on it).

Secondly, while Jean Chretien's appeal to the Federal Court to remove Justice John Gomery is a private matter, it continues to be a focal point of many Chretien Liberals who see the public inquiry as a carefully orchestrated witch hunt against the former Prime Minister.  Now, while no one is under the impression that the continuation of Gomery's inappropriate and biased conduct is being directed in any way by Paul Martin et al., as Hébert's above-linked column deftly describes, there is:

"...a source of profound unease to...Liberals who rue that day Martin put his government and his party under a self-imposed cloud."

Glad-handing aside, this weekend the Liberal party will set a policy course that will assist in crafting a platform for the next election, which is expected to take place in about a year from now.  There can be little doubt, however, that compared to the conventions of recent memory, the crowds will be smaller, the diversity will be lower, and the enthusiasm will be muted.

March 3, 2005 - TDH Strategies likes this good cop/bad cop routine that we seem to have adopted from the Americans.

Instead of fretting and publicly analyzing the U.S. reaction to our decline of the missile defence shield, new Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Frank McKenna has made a linkage between the decision and the ongoing disputes over softwood lumber and Canadian beef:

"Let me say this, that this [missile defence] issue in some ways perhaps could be construed as the direct result of letting fester some of the transactional issues.  From a Canadian perspective, you can understand how the atmosphere has not been conducive to creating a political environment where a different decision might have been achieved on the ballistic missile defence issue."

"I think one can say we would have had a much lower temperature in Canada in which to operate....it is my belief that the temperature in Canada has, in part, been at a pretty high level as a result of these ongoing irritants. So the logical extension of that is that if you could turn down the temperature, you would have a different political environment in which to operate."

Wow!  What a change in routine!  Similar to the way the White House has played the straight man to U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci's schtick for many years, the Prime Minister's Office press secretary Melanie Gruer reacted with this:

''I don't see him drawing the linkage'' between the trade disputes and missile defence. ''There have certainly been some bumps along the way in our relationship but we are going to continue working in partnership with the United States.''

McKenna is a Bush guy in Washington (from his personal relationships with Bush Sr. and George W.), and is already being welcomed with open arms.  This is why it is so very refreshing to see that rather than be sucked into a false sense of security in his new job, he has spent his first week stirring the pot.

If the Americans can get pissed off about a political decision of ours, and then take what they deem as appropriate actions in response (such as canceling a trip by a senior White House cabinet member to Canada), then why can't this country begin to view decisions on both sides of the border as consequential in their relationships to each other?

Outgoing Ambassador Michael Kergin had this to say about his previous role:

"I could be down here on the corner of Constitution and Pennsylvania and yell the worst implications against the White House and I don't know that people would care very much or notice. It would have to be pretty awful to get a footnote in the Washington Times (newspaper)."

It looks as though in just under a week, Mr. McKenna has figured out that maybe it doesn't have to be this hard anymore.

March 3, 2005 - Considering his transparent media stunts trying to garner support for his disgusting Safe Streets Act, this incident being reported about Lorne Mayencourt seems mighty fishy.  More to follow as details become available.

March 2, 2005 - In the weeks leading up to Paul Martin's trip to Mexico City for what some are calling the summit of "the Three Amigos" with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vincente Fox, this article should be required reading for all Canadians.

On a different path than this country's obsession with the after effects of the decision made on missile defence, these talks will centre on the North American Free Trade Agreement, and more specifically the dispute settlement mechanism, which is currently in total disrepair. 

It is this inability of the three partner governments to have sovereign recourse in trade disputes which comprises much of the mandate for the Task Force on the Future of North America.

This group is premised around the "deep integration" initiative, which in essence favours the elimination of borders, and reports to the Council on Foreign Affairs (CFA) (one of the most influential think tanks in Washington), the Task Force along with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and the Mexican Council on Foreign Affairs.  Without going into great detail, the task force's sole purpose is to advocate to redefine the citizenry of Canada, the United States and Mexico under the designation of "North Americans," with common interests in everything from  trade to security to resource extraction.

What should be most disturbing to Canadians is John Manley's role as co-chair in this endeavour, particularly in consideration of his incessant criticism of the Canadian government and Paul Martin over the past 6 months.  Aside from his transparent leadership aspirations within the Liberal party, one must really question the true motivations behind Manley's outbursts, and whether he is simply advancing the agendas of his corporate masters.

While Mr. Martin might not be a Prime Minister with the traditional values favoured by the likes of Pearson, Trudeau and Chretien, the alternative represented by John Manley's possible ascension should give every Liberal gathered in Ottawa for this weekend's national biennial convention food and fear for thought.

March 1, 2005 - TDH Strategies references this article by Jim Travers in the August 14, 2004 edition of the Toronto Star for the following quotes:

"Keeping Himelfarb makes sense. He is smart, a strategic thinker and one of too few people in government who shares Martin's fascination with ideas. He is also the best available person for a pivotal post and, equally important, will personify Martin's sudden acceptance that he and those who rose to power with him don't necessarily have every answer."

Which brings us up to the present and the Gomery Pyle Commission, where Mr. Himelfarb delivered a political bombshell in his delivered testimony yesterday:

"Jean Chrétien's lawyer Peter Doody revealed yesterday that Chrétien had been willing to stick around until Fraser's report was made public.

"Before Parliament was prorogued, did Mr. Chrétien tell you that he would stay in office for a longer period of time and not prorogue Parliament if Mr. Martin made a direct request of him that he do that?" Doody asked Himelfarb.

Yes, such an offer from Chrétien had been passed on to Martin's team, Himelfarb confirmed. But it was not accepted: "There was no response."

Over the past year, there have been many accusations made within the Liberal party by Martin supporters claiming that Chretien's dirty laundry screwed their leader from achieving the largest majority government in Canadian history.

Hogwash.

It was their over-anxiousness to do in their hated rival that proved to be the cause of so many of their disappointments from the first year in office.

Paul Martin's people have always been regarded as brilliant political operators - a statement, mind you, that has absolutely no bearing on the quality of their characters or integrity.  Although if as part of their bloodthirsty race against themselves to achieve power they brought the biggest political scandal in Canadian history unnecessarily into their laps, then that first acknowledgement must really be re-examined.

The legacy of Jean Chretien grows.  Rest assured, however, that the media will not disseminate this story anywhere near as widely as earlier reports/commentaries that incorrectly ascertained that Chretien left the sponsorship scandal for Paul Martin to choke on.  For that, it was Martin himself who bit off more than he was ready to chew.