November 30, 2005 - Michael Ignatieff quote to the Toronto Star on Monday:

"You spend five years teaching kids how to take political responsibility - it does cross your mind, what would it be like if you had to do it."

Well, here's your answer, Michael. Welcome to the democratic process.

November 30, 2005 - If you were scoring this election like a boxing match, you'd have to give Paul Martin a 2-point round for the first day of the campaign.

First, Stephen Harper goes back to his ice-cold persona by showing that he is either unable or unwilling to show real emotion:

Reporter: "Do you love this country?"

Stephen Harper: "I've always said Canada is a great country."

The Ottawa Citizen referred to his answer as "Spock-like enthusiasm." Ouch. Even later in the day, he still couldn't say the phrase that everyone wanted to hear:

"Today the Liberals suggested that I do not love this country. They suggested that people who don't vote Liberal don't love this country. Now that is what we're going to expect. It's mean and it saddens me."

Then in the same scrum with the media, Harper unnecessarily reopened the same-sex marriage debate by stating that he would have another vote on whether to rescind the legislation. This issue is a weak one for Harper, and was not going to be a part of this campaign until he opened his mouth. Now, Harper has shown that he doesn't respect the rule of law unless he agrees with it, and also provided the Liberals with exactly the opening they needed to once again scare Canadians.

One step forward, two steps back...that's Stephen Harper for you.

November 29, 2005 - Hope is what Stephen Harper was preaching in his first speech to his caucus after the defeat of the government, and he really did it quite well:

"It's never enough to show the country what we are against. We will offer them a positive vision for the future of this country."

"This is not just the end of a tired, directionless scandal-plagued government, it's the start of a bright new future for this great country."

"Canadians are counting on you to give them a clean, honest government."

"When Paul Martin comes after us, as he will - when he comes after me, as he's already planning - take that as a proof that we are on the right track."

He was genuinely warm with his caucus, smiled a lot, and appeared ready to assume the reins of leadership without the crutch of negative campaigning. By contrast, Paul Martin looked tired and typical, attacking his opposition and trumpeting the same old numbers that we've heard a million times.

He's still got a lot of ground to make up, and needs to define himself and his party before the Liberals do, but after yesterday, Harper seems to be on the right track.

November 29, 2005 - It is funny to hear Enviroment Minister Stephane Dion tell CTV that Canada is falling down on its Kyoto commitments when last February TDH Strategies criticized the man for his blatant denials of this very fact:

"...how can the Minister of Environment Stephane Dion stand up everyday in the House of Commons and state that we are going to meet our 2010 targets and when the Prime Minister is set to accept a voluntary agreement by car manufacturers on fuel economy rather than insisting on legally binding regulations.

Cars are the #1 source for greenhouse gases, and the key factor in determining whether Canada is successful in meeting its standards of environmental stewardship or not.

TDH Strategies feels sorry for Rick Mercer's shilling for the government's "one-tonne challenge," considering how it is clearly undetermined whether he is referring to gaseous emissions or the kind that tends to come out of the mouths of politicians and makes good fertilizer when spread on your lawn."

Will this be an election issue? Like we said yesterday, highly unlikely. And quite frankly, that's a real shame.

November 28, 2005 - After watching David McGuinty and then Paul Martin on TV, TDH Strategies challenges at least one of the parties to include legislation to ban all high-fiving between politicians into their platform.

November 28, 2005 - Conservatives Endorse Chretien. Amazing!

Watching the "War Room" on Don Newman's Politics program, and this is what the Conservative strategist says:

"Paul Martin is the most disappointing Prime Minister in history. He isn't Jean Chretien."

So Chretien is now the Tories' biggest weapon. Harper's stump speech on the campaign trail: "I may not be Chretien, but I'm certainly not Martin."

Personally, we don't think it would be half bad.

November 28, 2005 - And as a follow up to our earlier boycott of the Canadian Blog Awards that was posted below, the Dippers turn on Robert McClelland, apparently one of their own:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=25&t=001531

November 28, 2005 - Here is why the Liberal party is no longer viewed as a place where vision is welcomed to flourish. From Angelo Persihilli's column in the Hill Times this morning:

"The "de-Trudeauization" of the Liberal Party started with John Turner, it was put on hold during Jean Chretien's era, but now is in full swing with Paul Martin. The Liberal Party is no longer the house of many ideas, groups and people. It is restricted to a sect of a few young individuals whose lack of ideas and vision for this country is second only to their ambitions and presumptuousness.

The boys have abolished the Liberal Party but, incapable of building a new one, they want to destroy the alternative, the Conservative Party. The Conservatives can't help but react in kind.

So, with no charismatic leader and no public policy to unify Canadians, watch for the skunk fight in the long, drawn out, upcoming winter election."

What will the debate be grounded in? Corruption, health care, spending, taxes...hardly anything that will even come close to inspiring Canadians. Contemporary federal politics in this country has become nothing more than a win/loss affair, meaning that any tactic designed with victory in mind is deemed as acceptable.

It's funny...we are living in a moment in history where Canada's place in the world is tenuous and not yet defined. We are a middle power country with the benefit of the world's largest resource of oil and fresh water. We are being crushed by "free trade" with our largest trading partner, which represents 80% of our exports. Our demographics are going to destroy the Canadian health care system within 10 years unless brave and significant change is implemented. Environmentally, we have fallen well behind the pack of industrialized nations, and are continuing to slip. We have a growing sovereignist threat in Quebec, with no leader and no plan to counteract the leadup to an inevitable referendum (Quebec premier Jean Charest is going to lose the next election).

But you know what? Not one of these issues will be properly addressed, nor will any new ideas emerge. And at the end of it, we will have another minority government clinging to power as its first priority.

When's the next time TDH Strategies will feel excited about the future? Great question, and very difficult to answer.

November 28, 2005 - This is going to be a very tight campaign. So, do you know what TDH Strategies thinks is going to be the deciding difference between opposition and government? This:

Some of the names on this list are well established political entities, and with an election that is going to be filled with turmoil and uncertainty, anything can happen in these ridings.

Take for example the smug John Reynolds, who squeaked in last time around by barely beating young upstart Liberal candidate Blair Wilson, who was in the lead in all newscasts up until 3:00 in the morning. This is a riding that should swing Liberal, making up for other losses in BC like Hedy "there's crosses burning in Prince George" Fry, who will get upset by the ring rafe Svend Robinson.

November 28, 2005 - TDH Strategies is boycotting the Canadian Blog Awards.

Robert McClelland is now running these awards for the second year, and what was originally a good idea has been perverted by a bigot.

McClellend had this exchange with our friend Warren Kinsella trying to justify his anti-semetic views. Then another Liberal buddy Jason Cherniak directed our attention to this disgusting post by McClelland.

This website has been nominated for some awards, but we have asked for our nominations to be removed. We will take no joy in driving traffic to a site run by this man.

November 25, 2005 - All signs point to this being Paul Martin's election to lose. Here are just a few of the reasons why:

Stephen Harper liked Febuary's budget, and told the nation that it made him happy. The Tories have called foul over the recent spending announcements, yet don't have the guts to tell people specifically which ones they would cut as government. They spout off their usual battle cry of corruption, although Harper's motion yesterday will allow Martin to argue that it is the opposition which is responsible for not letting Justice Gomery complete his work.

Jack Layton seems to be back to serving as a one-issue party. Health care, health care, health care...that is all you hear coming out of the mouths of the NDP these days. Missile Defence? Martin took the wind out of those sails a year ago. Corruption? The Tories have that issue all locked up. Spending on social programs? Layton has nothing on Martin in terms of spending, paticularly after this past week. The last time the NDP ran a health-care only platform, Alexa McDonough tallied a lacklustre campaign into a paltry 19 seats, exactly the total that the NDP sit with today.

The Bloc Québécois will not sweep the province as many people are claiming, and will at most gain 10 seats from the Liberals. No Liberal losses will be as a result of Tory victories in Quebec, meaning that the Conservatives will have to make up ground elsewhere.

Martin has, for the most part, weathered the Gomery storm. He needs not mention it beyond pointing out that it is in the past, and changes that his government have made are now the rule of the day. He will beat Harper on policy, scare people into strategic voting away from the NDP, and possibly surprise some people against the BQ.

Don't get us wrong...rest assured that Martin will lose seats. He just won't lose government quite yet, however temporary or fleeting his next minority might well be.

November 24, 2005 - On November 21, 2005, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein emerged from a meeting with Stephen Harper stating that the Tory leader had asked him to say "nice things" in his speeches.

On November 23, 2005, Mr. Klein went to work on the request.

When Klein was asked by a reporter whether he would put money on a minority Liberal government if he were a betting man, Klein replied:

"Unfortunately, if I were a betting man, I would. But I wouldn't want to see that outcome.Klein also said that while he views Harper as a "bright, articulate individual, perhaps he's seen as too much on the right."

Klein also had a meeting with Harper on Monday regarding the introduction of private health care. From Monday's Globe and Mail:

"We're at point right now where we've hired a firm, a controversial firm undoubtedly, to do an assessment of whether people - as to whether there would be an insurance agency willing to accommodate people who wish to buy insurance for non-essential non-emergency services. That's where we are right now," Mr. Klein said.

He says he discussed the matter, and health care in general, in a meeting with Opposition Leader Stephen Harper Monday and that Mr. Harper gave the idea the thumbs-up. "His response is that's fine."

Stephen Harper is a man who four years ago advised Alberta to withdraw from medicare and who two years ago wrote that Ottawa should scrap the Canada Health Act. Yet last spring, Harper started distancing himself from these past statements due to what he described as "political realism" (TRANSLATION: Political Opportunism).

In spite of Klein's ill-timed comments about his election predictions, in the view of TDH Strategies, it seems as though Harper is preparing a campaign where Ralph Klein does his dirty work for him.

November 23, 2005 - In delivering his first budget in 1994, Paul Martin said this:

"For years, governments have been promising more than they can deliver, and delivering more than they can afford. This has to end."

That was then, and this is now. In fact, this is becoming a pattern, because he did the exact same thing in the lead up to the last election (that time ALSO to the tune of $10 billion).

November 22, 2005 - Dirty politics - apparently, the public cannot escape it, whether in municipal, provincial or federal affairs. It seems as though Vancouver's new mayor Sam Sullivan has his hands all over a pretty slimy trick, despite all of his empty denials. Here's the story.

Jim Green, mayoral candidate for the new Vision Vancouver party, and close colleague of former mayor Larry Campbell, was thought to be the frontrunner from the very beginning of the race. Mr. Sullivan, while considered a nice man, was seen as little more than a wallflower over his tenure on city council over the past 12 years. Enter James Green into the race.

James Green, a former music teacher, events promoter and Delta school-board trustee, threw his hat into the ring, and sold himself as a serious candidate. For a man who had very limited resources upon first inspection, Green was running in style with an office in the not-so-cheap Plaza of Nations, renting a provincial-election-style campaign bus that usually costs in the neighbourhood of abuot $1,000/day, and had a slick political website designed by a well-known television producer of the company Fairfax Creative. In Saturday's election, James Green ended up getting 4,273 votes, while Jim Green lost to Sullivan by 3,647 votes.

All the way through the campaign, Sullivan denied ever meeting James Green, or that his campaign had anything to do with helping the fledgling candidate. Even on election night, Sullivan dismissed all questions about setting Green up as a spoiler to create confusion on the ballot. Well, sure enough, today's Vancouver Sun proves that Mayor Sullivan is a liar:

"Sullivan has repeatedly denied that he or his campaign had anything to do with the man who may have taken a significant number of votes from Vision Vancouver's Jim Green.:

Restaurant owner Julius Simon told CTV news, in a taped interview, that Sullivan had asked him to provide free office space for Green in the complex near Simon's Azure Restaurant at the Plaza of Nations. "Sam, he asked, you know, if I can help him, you know, with his office."

If he hadn't been a candidate, would all of James Green's votes gone to Jim Green? Who knows. Is it illegal to support an opposing candidate financially and otherwise? Not really. But is it a disgusting perversion of fairness and ethics to deny such a relationship, and then win as a result of it? Without a doubt.

Welcome to office, Sam.

November 22, 2005 - BC MLA Lorne Mayencourt is a complete idiot (go check out this post on his Safe Streets campaign to further confirm this statement). Last week, all BC MLAs (the NDP and the Liberal government were unanimous in their collusion) try to push through a 15% pay raise for themselves in one day, so that the public wouldn't be able to react.

Well, they did, and NDP leader Carole James made a quick reversal, asking the government to delay the legislation. Well, yesterday, Mayencourt got up and whined about how hard done by he is:

"Eleven dollars a week. A pension after 12 years of hard work in this house. I don't complain about how hard we work, but every member...knows we work 12 hours a day and the go home and go to a dinner for this and a dance for that, and everything costs $150." [Editor's Note: BOO FRICKING HOO].

From the Tyee, here is a list of Mayencourt's complaints about not having enough money:

"A sideshow during the brief debate on Bill 19 was an emotional rant from Lorne Mayencourt, the only MLA to vote against repealing the money grab. He argued that his pay increase worked out to only $11 per week.

Mathematical and financial skills like that may cast some light on why he previously experienced bankruptcy. He argued that MLAs base pay was not $75,400, but rather the sum of that plus the employer's (public's) contribution to his RRSP. Finally, he compared his net of RRSP contribution position, after matching the employer's contribution, with what his net of gold plated pension plan contribution would be.

Spaceship to planet Mayencourt: your constituents would love to buy a 65 percent of best three years defined benefit pension plan which is fully vested after 12 years for less than $100,000. Mayencourt couldn't or wouldn't grasp that the pension grab was to be made at a cost to the MLAs that is less than the plan would pay in benefits in under two years. Guess who was to finance the shortfall.

Mayencourt also revealed details about the current allowance paid to MLAs for the operation of their constituency offices. He bemoaned the fact that they receive "just" $84,000 to pay their staff and cover incidental expenses. He failed to mention that the office rent is fully paid by the taxpayers, as is the use of a cell phone and one of those infamous Blackberries. A lot of small business people would like to have it so rough."

Poor Lorne Mayencourt. God does this man make us sick.

November 21, 2005 - BREAKING NEWS: INFLUENCE PEDDLING FIGURE STILL INVOLVED IN LIBERAL NOMINATON.

For those readers who are unaware of the intrigue surrounding the BC legislature raids two years ago, and the deep connections to the Paul Martin political organization, please read this backgrounder story (specifically detailing the shady figure and long-time Martin operative Erik Bornman).

To make a long story short, Bornman was the registered provincial lobbyist for OmniTRAX, the US-based rail company that was bidding for the billion dollar BC Rail deal against eventual winner CN Rail and CP Rail, which dropped out of the bidding because of what it said was a "clear breach" of fairness in the process due to other bidders receiving confidential information.

Simultaneous to the legislature raids, police also searched the homes of Bruce Clark, another federal Liberal executive member in BC and the brother of former Deputy Premier Christy Clark, and the office of Bornman.

The search-warrant "information to obtain" or ITO released by police in September, 2004 claim that Bornman offered provincial ministerial aides Dave Basi and Bob Virk a benefit -- help in obtaining $100,000-plus jobs with the federal Liberal government -- in exchange for obtaining confidential information about the BC Rail deals.

Yesterday, the federal Liberal riding association for Saanich-Gulf Islands had their nomination meeting to choose their candidate for the upcoming federal election. The race between Jag Dhanowa and former Liberal MLA Sheila Orr had become bitter, largely because of disputes over what Orr supporters referred to as the "instant Liberals" who have supported Dhanowa in the past.

Orr ended up winning by 71 votes, but the most fascinating thing about the entire affair was the appearance of Dave Basi, the central figure in the police raids and a man now charged with breach of trust, accepting a bribe to influence government business (from none other than Erik Bornman) and fraud over $5,000. Basi brought a significant amount of members out to support Dhanowa.

One Question: If Paul Martin can ban these 10 individuals from the Liberal party (many of whom happen to be Chretien supporters), why hasn't he done the same with his political organizers in the form of Basi and Bornman?

November 21, 2005 - Vancouver has elected a new mayor and a council that, while split down the middle, seems capable of serving as a balanced, moderate group for which the city can move forward with. This is in stark contrast to last time, when a bunch of left-wing ideologues were lifted to victory by the one, the only, Larry Campbell. Their collective defeats (with the exception of the lone remaining David Cadman) vindicates something we wrote in a letter to the editor back in November, 2002:

"With a timely political introduction, one man took a party he had nothing in common with and single-handedly carried it to power."

Speaking of Senator Campbell, he wrote a nice piece in yesterday's special edition of the Sun, where he began with the following paragraph:

"It seems very fitting that one of the first official responsibilities for the new Mayor of Vancouver will be to retrieve the Olympic flag from Turin, Italy. The hand-over of the flag – the final act in the closing ceremonies of the 20th Olympic Winter Games – will represent a watershed moment in the history of our city. And it is the same winds of change that transformed the face of Vancouver politics three years ago that will fly this symbol of hope high above City Hall in the years leading up to 2010."

Say what you want about the new mayor Sam Sullivan, but it will be an amazing reflection on our city when a quadriplegic in a wheelchair gets up on that stage in front of 1 billion people to accept that flag. TDH Strategies will be very proud of Vancouver when that day arrives.

November 21, 2005 - So Paul Martin stood by and did nothing when his Quebec lieutenant said this:

"It's useless because it wouldn't change anything. If there was a will in Quebec, a clear will to separate, they would not be able to stop a will like that by trying to have tricks." - Jean Lapierre, Press Conference, February 5, 2004, referring to the Clarity Act.

But now all of a sudden, he states this in his response to André Boisclair's ascension to the leadership of the Parti Québécois:

"Specifically, Mr. Boisclair has indicated he would not be bound by the provisions of the Clarity Act which were recognized in a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Mr. Boisclair's declaration amounts to a rejection of the rule of law in favour of political expediency."

As our friend Calgary Grit pointed out in an email about the post below, "CHRETIEN SCORES AGAIN."

November 19, 2005 - From an avid reader and well connected Liberal:

"Jean Chretien is the last guy you would expect to be on a hot streak in politics today, given the findings of Gomery and Martin's anti-campaign.

While many expected Gomery to put him on the disabled list, Chretien has responded with a hat-trick, and we are only in the first period.

First, Conrad Black is taken down by the USA with nowhere to run, thanks to the Lord's poor citizenship.

Second, a judge throws the VIA keys back to his pal Jean Pelletier, tossing a steaming hot potato back to the federal Cabinet and reaffirming the current government's shortcomings.

Third, the current Prime Minister is reduced to pleading with the opposition for eight more weeks in government, a spectacle made more ironic by the fact that two years ago this month it was Paul Martin's team that hurried Chretien out the door eight weeks early.

Can't wait for the second period."

Couldn't have said it better ourselves.

November 18, 2005 - This vindication is just the beginning of a string of events that will demonstrate how the creation of the Gomery inquiry and subsequent political manoeuvring were largely driven by a desire to tarnish Jean Chretien and anyone associated with him.

TDH Strategies wrote this on February 18, 2004:

"Paul Martin has stumbled in his speech, enshrined the words "in fact" into the most annoying political lexicon of the year, changed his stories and accounts several times (sometimes within hours of each other), and generally looked insincere and contrived in his time on the airwaves.

That being said, there is still a hunger amongst the general public, both from political neophytes and avid news watchers, for straight talk guided by honesty. Whether in person or through various mediums, people are generally tired of unanswered questions, handshakes with eyes that dart over one's shoulder, and coined phrases cooked up by political spin doctors.

The politics of the future will be a more skilled version of what Paul Martin has attempted over the past week.

Sincerity sells. Period."

We still believe that Canadians hunger for candour from thier politicians, and that the sponsorship scandal would have been the perfect time to demonstrate some. Problem is, Martin was never sincere about his motivations.

Was he madder than hell? Yes, but not at the impropriety so much as the bomb that was delivered to his doorstep because of a braintrust that INSISTED on taking office 2 months earlier than Chretien was scheduled to leave. Was he going to get to the bottom of it? Sure, as long as Chretien and his allies were the ones that would be squashed under his foot. Did he know that there was political interference? No, but there was no harm in attacking the previous administration with these accusations.

TDH Strategies anxiously awaits the 2006 sequel to this Federal court decision, when Jean Chretien is found to have been unfairly singled out by the Gomery-Martin cabal of collusion.

November 17, 2005 - He says that he wants to govern, yet the Kyoto protocol has been another left-over Jean Chretien policy initiative that Paul Martin has completely dropped the ball on.

But with this group now piping up (quite surprisingly), maybe now he will take notice and make it one of his 247 #1 PRIORITIES.

November 17, 2005 - "Excuse me sir, I am terribly sorry to bother you, but I am putting forward this proposal, and am very much hoping that you will read it. It would be an election that occurs after the 2nd Gomery report, so it should be to your liking. Thank you for your consideration."

How truly pathetic Jack Layton has become.

November 16, 2005 - Everyone MUST watch this shocking video.

Now here is an excerpt from George W. Bush's State of the Union address in January, 2003:

"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons."

What a disgusting hypocrite.

November 16, 2005 - If they have similar policies, and positions in their respective parties that in many ways mirror each other, then are Paul Martin and Stephen Harper mortal enemies, or simply competing for reign over a now defunct piece of Canadian history:

"If anything, in the coming election each will be striving to portray himself as the natural heir of ... the defunct Progressive Conservative party."

Even without Chantal Hébert's assessment, this website has always felt that Mr. Martin belonged in the Progressive Conservative party. As a long time and respected Manitoba Liberal reader wrote in an email received yesterday:

"Now, I see the current way of doing things and want to take a giant step back, but I also realize that it's a matter of time and the sands will shift once again (likely within the next year) and hopefully we won't have anyone as hell-bent on gaining power and fulfilling Daddy's destiny as we currently do. (Too many parallels with Bush there...but that's another story.)"

And this is the way that many Liberals across the country feel - that a man trying to live up to his father's legacy (but falling well short) has taken the most successful party in Canadian history and turned it into mud.

Last week TDH Strategies had a cordial conversation with Martin's top provincial political general, where it was argued that the Prime Minister got the short end of the stick when he had to face the burden of the sponsorship scandal. There are 2 things, however, that our friend conveniently forgets: a) that Martin's political machine pushed Chretien 3 months early, and thus engineered responsibility for the AG's report, and b) if Martin had simply handed the affair over to the RCMP, instead of going on the "Madder Than Hell" tour, we wouldn't be in this mess.

TDH has never been into the show Survivor, but after reading Ms. Hébert's column, we're reminded of the time that they ran Survivor All Stars, where all of the "best" contestants from previous incarnations came back into the fold. The so-called all-star team was a flop in the ratings, the natural tendencies of the original were completely abandoned, and everyone was just waiting for the show to end so that the next version would replace its memory.

Sounds a lot like the Liberal government these days.

November 15, 2005 - Finally delving into Lawrence Martin's "Iron Man: The Defiant Reign of Jean Chretien," and found this line to close out the first chapter very interesting:

"Rarely had the party been less enthused about handing over the leadership prize. Jean Chretien had come in as a figure out of the past, promising little, stirring no great dreams."

Funny how that kind of introduction was a precursor to ten of the most successful political years in Canadian history, while a figure representing the future, promising the world, and stirring every great dream imaginable has left us with the current state of affairs.

November 15, 2005 - In spite of reporting full of bravado and manufactured intrigue, the current state of federal politics is about as awe inspiring to Canadians as standing in a bank lineup to pay a bill. And $30 billion of tax cuts (however welcome they might be) are not going to suddenly propel people to care.

This critique isn't a pontification on the romantic ideals of great leaders who change the face of the country - we are far beyond that realm of possibility. Rather, the mind numbing effects of a government and opposition completely mired in the business of scandal and electoral reward has only distanced people from all involved. Much worse than cynicism is the prospect of complete and utter indifference.

How can the voting public feel a connection to either a party or particular individual? Paul Martin's Liberals are a well-oiled political machine, void of any kind of substantial ideas on governance and tainted by the filth of corruption, but buoyed by serving as the long-term comfortable default option. Stephen Harper is a man that shows flashes of identifiable sincerity and charisma, only to be brought down by a lack of any defining or appealing policy, a political braintrust weak in tactical outcomes, and a membership full of fringe right-wing ideology. Jack Layton is completely inconsistent, at times angling his party with manoeuvres of great influence (due only to the composition of a minority Parliament), and at other times fading into complete obscurity.

Honestly, for the sake of politics in this country, let us all hope that election day produces almost mirror image results to the current numbers in the House. Only then, when faced with the weight of failed expectations, will each respective party take a good hard look at their current leadership and start to plan for the next chapter.

November 14, 2005 - "Let's all give Paul Martin the best chance at victory." A four-hour meeting between all the opposition leaders yesterday didn't quite produce that statement, but it might as well have.

Let's forget the long pontifications, and cut to the chase. They tell Martin that he has to agree to call an election in early January, or the opposition will defeat the government. So, If Martin buckles to the conditions, he has another month to woo voters with cash that will make the Gomery report a distant memory. And if he doesn't agree (which is what has already been stated and thus will likely bring down the government next week), the opposition parties will be collectively blamed for thrusting campaigning politicians down the throats of Canadians' holidays. Either way, Martin wins.

As for this new coaltion between the Conservatives, the BQ and the NDP, well, it is just odd. Take for example Peter McKay on Canada AM this morning, sporting an orange tie in the "spirit of cooperation." With all the nasty words that have flowed between Stephen Harper and Jack Layton over the past year, the Liberal war room will have a field day with this new found love between the two men. It should also be interesting to see how Ralph Goodale's mini-budget later today creates confusion, as Layton opposed the tax cuts last spring, while Harper supported them.

This cooperation has been a poorly planned endeavour, without foresight or substance to back it up. Combine widespread tax relief with a time lapse from the Gomery commission, stir in some incompetent opposition and platforms that only know one tune, and you have a recipe for more of the same - a disfunctional, uninteresting and non-productive House of Commons.

BORRRRRINNNNNNG.

November 11, 2005 - Lest We Forget.

November 10, 2005 - My God...in all of our years in politics, TDH Strategies has never read any hatchet job on a political staffer as enjoyable, fascinating, behind-the-scenes, and effective as this one in MacLean's last week. It's worth the cover price on it's own.

November 10, 2005 - Last week, TDH Strategies wrote the following to Jack Layton:

"...the only way that Martin is going to have a shot at being defeated, both in the House and in an election campaign, is if the opposition parties unite."

"Bring down the government now, and stand together with your opposition brethren to show that all 3 parties represent the discontent of the entire country."

Well, this isn't exactly what we had in mind. Let us count the ways in which this proposal is a horrible idea.

First, every day that passes between the release of the Gomery report and the fall of the government makes the Liberals stronger, and solidifies their lead in the polls. A vote that will happen on the 24th of November, which will trigger an election sometime in February (in the plans of the NDP, at least) will do nothing to stoke the fires of anger that all opposition parties seem to claim exist.

Secondly, this dithering on who will and won't inititate a defeat of the government has made all party leaders look extremely weak. If Stephen Harper, for example, chose forward a motion of non-confidence on Tuesday the 15th, then the onus falls squarely on Layton, who could either be responsible for Paul Martin's survival, or standing tall with the rest of the opposition members who showed their displeasure without hesitation. Instead, no one has the guts to take the first step forward.

Lastly, corruption has been the unifying issue between the opposition parties over the past year, and the one that has branded the Liberal name irreparably. So what do the opposition leaders do when they have their opportunity to let the voter decide on that very issue? They squander their opportunity so that the issue becomes to complicated and convoluted for anyone to care anymore. That is just bad politics.

The Liberal government headed by Martin is a trainwreck that is at times painful to watch. Then again, observing the neverending ineptitude of the opposition is just as excrutiating.

November 9, 2005 - Everytime TDH Strategies wants to honour Remembrance Day in solidarity with the Royal Canadian Legion, a story like this makes its annual appearance in the headlines.

Don't get us wrong...for the past decade, TDH Strategies has consistently paid our respects in ceremonies across the country, from Vancouver to Toronto. Where there is a Cenotaph, expect to find our presence on November 11.

That being said, TDH has over the years also witnessed very aggressive behaviour from the Legion with rights and ownership over the act of remembrance. We've seen high schools dragged through the mud in the press because the Legion didn't approve of some aspect of their Remembrance Day program. We've seen turbaned Sikh veterans banned from Legions on Remembrance Day because of a no headgear policy. We've seen well respected CBC reporter Ian Hanomansing called "Johnny Brown" on camera by Legionaires. And we've also seen fierce protection over the Poppy, to the point of turning it into an exclusive symbol rather than one which unites.

If the Royal British Legion actively encourages groups to download and use its poppy symbol "for maximum online visibility," then why should it be any different here in Canada? Well, listen to this logic:

"The poppy is a trademark of the legion and anyone who wants to use it has to apply. Otherwise it would be all over the place."

Excuse us for asking, but what the hell would be wrong with that? Sorry, but when you start using the word trademark in relation to the poppy, it perverts the sentiment.

So, here is our act of rebellion against the Legion:

Not enough people in this country actually take the time to pay their respects to our past. Acts of remembrance should be encouraged, not attacked.

November 8, 2005 - Ottawa's latest hot potato is a confidence motion...any confidence motion...that would bring down the Liberal government. In a conversation with TDH yesterday, it was suggested by one of this country's most respected and briliant political strategists that everyone was playing a shell game, hiding their true intentions from public consumption.

Every single opposition leader, however, publicly stated yesterday that it wouldn't be their party that would trigger an election:

"We only have the votes to defeat the Liberals if Mr. Layton is prepared to defeat the Liberals, and we'll only know if Mr. Layton is prepared to defeat the Liberals if he's prepared to take the initiative to do that." - Stephen Harper

"But it's up to the NDP and the Conservatives now to take action, because the two are saying that it has to be done through the federalist parties. So fine, we will go along with whatever they decide." - Gilles Duceppe

"We will have to see how the motions come forward, but as it stands at the moment, if there is a motion of non-confidence on the table at the House, we will not be supporting or indicating confidence in the government." - Jack Layton

If all parties are so anxious, why then won't anyone stand up and take the leap? Well, there are many reasons for that.

Fisrt, no one wants to be responsible for a campaign that sees candidates knocking on doors through the Christmas holidays. Regardless of how hungry Canadians allegedly are for a campaign, Canadians are not interested in encountering fake smiles and useless brochures ringing their doorbells in December. The man who does decide to put forth this motion will be relentlessly attacked by the government, if not other opposition parties.

Secondly, there is an inherent mistrust that exists between all opposition leaders. Harper accuses Layton of backing out on several previous deals, and so unless the NDP leader shows concrete resolve to bring down the government, Ol' Blue Eyes isn't about to be tricked again. Layton is caught between supporting the corruption of the government or cozying up to the Tories, a move that will make many core supporters and the NDP swing vote very uncomfortable. And Duceppe, by definition of his party's existence and purpose in Ottawa, will not likely take the bold step of leading the charge.

Lastly, and possibly more importantly, is the uncertainty of polling right now. From 31%-30% for the Tories, to 35%-29% for the Tories, to now 35%-28% for the Liberals, no one will really be able to properly gauge the depth of public anger for many weeks yet. If Allan Gregg's numbers are correct, we would likely get the same result as the 2004 federal election.

In the current political climate, opportunity is a strange and elusive beast, anchored by one simple fact: the Liberals, regardless of how bad the sponsorship scandal has damaged the brand, will always be the first choice for a majority of Canadians. Could this coming campaign be the perfect squeeze play, with the NDP attacking the government on the privatization of health care, and the Tories hammering away on corruption? Sure. But with so many Canadians still scared of the prospect of a Stephen Harper spell in office, the Liberals will remain as a resilient force.

December 8, the first day where voting on financial measures will guarantee a confidence vote, is going to be a very interesting day.

November 7, 2005 - What is the height of arrogance? Anyone associated with Paul Martin these days.

So, this morning's Vancovuer Sun reports that stray insider emails have mistakenly come to an Abbotsford man for many years because of a mistyped email address. Ruth Thorkelsen, former deputy chief of staff in Martin's office, was detailing a plan for Ontario MP Judi Longfield to send out a press release accusing Consevative candidates Jim Flaherty and John Baird of violating the Canada Elections Act.

Thorkelsen was wrong, as no rules were broken, and when accused by the email recepient of being underhanded, she replied:

"I can't really comment on what this guy thinks of it, but civilians have a different view of politics than we do."

Civilians? Hey Ruth, is there a war on? Now that you've left the government, are you living in a bunker?

Yet another example of how these bumbling idiots just don't get it.

November 7, 2005 - While no one can be entirely sure about how Stephen Harper will act during an actual election, this statement:

"...keep assuming we're behind. We have to work hard. We have to keep talking to voters. We have to earn their trust. If we do that, we will win the next federal election."

is much better than what he said on June 17, 2004, when after pollster Michael Marzolini put the Conservatives at 36% compared to the Liberals 31%, a smug Harper exclaimed:

"I've consulted people on transition and will be continuing those consultations over the next few days. I've always had some reserve plans. As things keep looking up, we'll obviously expand on those consultations and make some announcements as it's appropriate."

"We're headed towards a national majority and I think we're getting closer to that all the time."

And, we all know what happened to his campaign after that.

One of the words most closely associated with the Liberals these days is arrogant, and so there is absolutely no need for Stephen Harper to make himself come across that way.

The same National Post article that carries Harper's quote of humility also reports this:

"Even Mr. Harper's initial response to the Quebec judge's conclusions were cool, saying his party is willing to defeat the government, but that it seems unlikely given the NDP's stance. He also admitted the report's findings are unlikely to keep voter anger at a peak until a spring election."

Exactly. So, like this website has been asking for many months now, after the furor over Gomery begins to dissipate, how are you going to keep their attention? NOW is the time to start to start acclimatizing Canadians to what a Conservative government might look like.

What would you do in terms of tax relief for Canadians? What is your real stance on the health care system? What would you do with the federal government's recently introduced child care program? These are all questions that voters need to know about.

There is a reason why the Liberals have always been considered as Canada's natural governing party. Historically, the times that Conservatives have achieved power have been the times that Canadians were comfortable enough that their country wasn't going to go the route of the United States. So, quotes from Harper's past along the lines of this:

"I don't worship the marketplace, but it is a proven mechanism for providing the highest opportunities for personal choice and prosperity."

need to be banished from the minds and fears of Canadians.

Time to let the country know exactly what you represent, Stephen.

November 4, 2005 - TDH sources have just notified us that as a follow-up to the high fiving that occurred after hearing that their golden boy had been "exonerated," Paul Martin backers are being actively encouraged by the powers that be to engage in a pro-Martin, anti-Chretien letter-to-the-editor campaign.

Smart strategy guys, considering how candidates and ridings across the country are already complaining about a lack of volunteers.

November 4, 2005 - Political strategy time, as both Stephen Harper and Jack Layton are in desperate need of some.

It is funny how the opposition (and all 3 parties are guilty of this) mention the word "Earnscliffe" as if the Canadian public is fully informed of what it conotates. Wake-up call, Gents: very few do, and at this point, no one really cares. But, there is a huge story to tell here, and it is on all of your shoulders to explain its magnitude.

So in lieu of coming on national televison after the Gomery release to explain that a) he doesn't know how the Prime Minister is still in power and b) he takes no responsbility for initiating the next election, what if Mr. Harper had instead created a flow chart and hammered home how closely connected Paul Martin's "board" is to big business (go take a look at how many lobbyists surround the man, and who exactly they are representing). How about something along the lines of "Paul Martin is not exonerated...the entire structure of the PMO is in bed with private interests. He has spent the past 10 years giving contracts to his closest advisors, and absolutely nothing has changed."

Where is mention of the Mike Robinson's or Bruce Young's of Martin's inner circle, both of whose revolving door styles of employment frequently alternate between encapsulation under Martin's wing and selling influence in the private sector? Spoon feed people the story, lay it out with visual aids, explain that "Who you know in the PMO" still matters - but don't sit there and let Martin off the hook. Harper seems to develop a bad case of spontaneous arthritis every time he has his hands around the neck of an opponent (just witness his disasterous 2004 federal campaign performance).

As for you, Mr. Layton, your act is getting old, very quickly. You were a giant amongst men when you engineered $4.8 billion in concessions from Martin last spring. But an attempt at doing this a second time is not going to resonate with voters. People are ready to see resolve, and the only way that Martin is going to have a shot at being defeated, both in the House and in an election campaign, is if the opposition parties unite. So, convoluted and incoherent statements like this:

"We know an election is coming, the question of precisely when that election should happen is one that is certainly on our minds."

aren't going to help you very much.

Today is Friday, your deadline for the Liberal government on health care has come and gone, and yet you still want to appear indecisive and at the same time comfortable nursing at Mr. Martin's tit? It is not going to be better for you in the spring...the minute that Martin announces that he is adopting Justice Gomery's February 1st recommendations, the game is over. Bring down the government now, and stand together with your opposition brethren to show that all 3 parties represent the discontent of the entire country.

If there is one thing that we learned from le petit gar de Shawinigan, it is that as Prime Minister, Jean Chretien made things happen. Every single one of the current party leaders would be well advised to take a page from the playbook of a man that had more than enough testicular fortitude for the lot of them.

November 3, 2005 - Just when we thought that the Sam Sullivan posting below was ridiculous, this story comes along.

So let us get this straight...the frontrunning leadership candidate for the Parti Quebecois Andre Boisclair is upset that Governor General Michaëlle Jean, who happens to be the British Crown's representative in Canada, made a joke about him:

"Mrs. Jean was not participating in a private event. Mrs. Jean was participating in a public event, televised, taped."

Hmmm...you go public with your cocaine use as a Quebec cabinet minister in the mid 1990's, are greeted with ridicule from cartoonists, talk show hosts and comedians from across the province and country, but choose to take issue with the speech of an individual that holds a post that you don't recognize in a country that you want to break apart - 2 weeks after it was delivered.

Ahh, but the brilliance of this man doesn't end there:

"Boisclair also declined to say who supplied him with the drug and became visibly frustrated when a reporter asked him if that person had ties to organized crime."

"Honestly, do we ask Jean Charest where he bought his pot from? If the person who sold him pot had links to criminals," Boisclair said before cutting the news conference short."

Yes, great point. If Charest's pot dealer isn't under scrutiny, then why can't you leave his cocaine pusher alone? Where's the justice in that?

Maybe Mr. Boisclair can come to Vancouver and get Mr. Sullivan to drive him around in his van to score a hit on the downtown eastside.

November 2, 2005 - West Coast politics are wacky, and the Vancouver mayoral campaign is no different. Accusations of adultery, comparisons to Hitler, a transvestite prostitute councillor candidate that has more profile than 95% her competitors...well, you get the picture.

But in all of our years in politics, TDH Strategies has never heard of anything as outrageous as this:

"Jim Green's chief opponent is Sam. That's Sam Sullivan, a Cantonese-speaking quadriplegic and conservative-minded city councillor who has helped junkies score crack and heroin, sometimes driving them around the needle-infested Downtown Eastside and letting them fix inside his van. Sam wants to be mayor, too."

A couple of weeks back, Sullivan apparently got in front of 900 of his supporters and burst into tears about the shame he had broght to his party. He refused, however, to apologize for the act of purchasing the heroin. Actually, TDH sources report that one of the addicts that Sam aided claims to have been given money for two hits in an hour, because Sam didn't see the first purchase go down. None of these stories are being denied by Sullivan.

Guess this is what Sullivan means when he says (claimed continuously throughout the course of this campaign) that he invented harm reduction.

November 2, 2005 - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

And in a bid to gain profile (hey, he hasn't been in public office for several years now) and solidify his inevitable victory, TDH hears that his campaign manager will be this fellow Montrealer.

November 2, 2005 - Our friend Scott Tribe over at Progressive Bloggers poses an interesting query to Stephen Harper: If you want an election, why not make it happen?

Tribe does a little math, and concludes that Harper's tactic of hiding behind Jack Layton's moustache doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny:

"Mr. Layton is going to have to decide whether he thinks this is an issue worthy of bringing the government down."

The Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois currently total for 152 seats, which comes in at 1 more than a Liberal/NDP coalition (1 seat of which encompasses the Speaker's vote, which only comes into play when there is a tie). Throw in the 4 independents (O'Brien, Kilgour, Parrish and Dejarlais), and Tribe figures that Harper doesn't need the NDP at all.

Well, while it isn't nearly as simple as that, as former Liberals O'Brien and Kilgour are still wild cards, and not completely assured to vote against the government. There are, however, a couple of points that can be drawn from Harper's remarks yesterday.

First, Harper's half-hearted attempt at initiating an election demonstrates that he is thinking (but not completely sure) that the current opportunity is the best that he is going to get, in spite of the Tories' weak polling numbers. Having an election within 30 days of the second report will only play to Paul Martin's advantage. Gomery comes out with suggestions on how to clean up government, Martin the golden boy who has been exonerated makes an immediate announcement to implement the bulk of his recommendations, and Harper's main campaign issue flies out the window.

The other thing that is becoming more obvious with the Conservatives is that they are a one-trick pony, unable of capturing the attention of voters without their typical war cries of scandal, corruption and crooks to prop them up. Harper was truly exasperated when wondering out loud as to how the sitting Prime Minister hadn't stepped down amidst such scandal, stating that this could happen in no other parliamentary democracy but Canada. Maybe he was just angry at the situation - the fact that the government has become arrogant and sloppy in its waning years. More likely, however, is the fact that their appeal has been built upon a deck of cards which has now come crashing down on Harper's already weakened spirit.

Where are the policies that are going to distinguish you to the voters. Tax cuts? Sorry, but Ralph Goodale has taken that wind out of your sails. Crime? Maybe, although outside of major cities (places that you don't particularly play well in to begin with), it is an issue that won't particularly resonate. Democratic reform? Sorry, Messrs. Martin and Gomery already have that one wrapped up quite nicely. Health care? We can already hear the screams of fear that the Liberals can so easily elicit from Canadians. Defending Canada from the United States? Yes, we're sure that voters will buy that one from a party that was so adamant about going to war in Iraq.

TDH Strategies is out of policy ideas that might bring traction. So, we have one question for you, Mr. Harper: What else you got?

November 1, 2005 - Man do we miss this guy:

Question: "Today it was announced that some people would be banned from the Liberal party for life. What do you think of banishing someone from a party for life?"

Jean Chretien: "There are various statutes in various provinces. I never thought I had that power. If I'd had it, well...(laughter). I may have used it on many occasions, in particular, regarding Mr. Lapierre when he founded or helped found the Bloc Quebecois. I would have banished him for life. I'm not sure he's going to be a federalist if things go badly here. So I would have given him his walking papers in person."

This is in addition to many other jabs, including our favourite, when after talking about the rigours of being Prime Minister, he proudly stated:

"There was one thing with me...I was always happy to make a decision."

Hmmm...wonder who he could be making a contrast with.

November 1, 2005 - There are so many details, personalities and implications to consider, so TDH is going to be selective in our observations.

The concept of ministerial accountability is one that must be adhered to, if we are to believe that it is our elected officials rather than rogue bureaucrats that are steering the ship. Thus, surprisingly enough, we agree with the assertion that Jean Chretien must bare some responsiblity for the actions of his chief of staff Jean Pelletier. That being said, Gomery found absolutely no wrongdoing by Mr. Chretien - something that many of us have been saying since this scandal erupted.

Paul Martin's dictate to his Ministers to create utter and complete separation with the past is going to haunt him. For Scott Brison, a Johnny-come-lately Liberal, to preach about how Martin was the only leader that had the guts to take action is a little rich, clearly delineating that the current government is prepared to not so subtlely continue to take potshots at the Chretien administration. Like Warren Kinsella points out on his site this mornng, "Chretien called in the AG. Chretien called in the Mounties. Chretien was the guy who moved on this mess first, not Paul Martin. That's the facts."

It is absolute crap to state that Paul Martin was completely removed from knowledge about the sponsorship program. Once again, we refer to this question that this website asked of Stephane Dion on February 10, 2005:

Prime Minister Paul Martin has just testified that while he was aware that the federal government participated in sponsoring cultural and sporting events, he was not aware of a particular sponsorship program towards this end until well after the year 2000.

In February, 2004, however, you are quoted as stating that Mr. Martin was a part of weekly meetings between Quebec cabinet ministers that often talked about the sponsorship program in Quebec, and therefore was not "out of the loop."

Yet, in this Chantal Hebert article from the Toronto Star, she writes that in your testimony to the Gomery Commission, you claimed that ministers had "little more knowledge of the sponsorship program than the opposition and the public."

So, which is it - did Quebec ministers know, or didn't they?

For Stephen Harper to on television and say that the future of this government is not in his hands is a typical cop out by a wishy-washy leader. There is nothing new here for the Canadian public to get angry about...in fact, without the benefit of innuendo and speculation, your hopes of pinning blame on the government has largely disappeared. So what do you do? You say that it is up to Jack Layton to bring the government down. The thing is, after people get angry, they then have doubt. And with doubt comes opportunity. It is too bad then that you have neither the gumption nor ideas to inspire anyone to even consider you seriously as Prime Minister.

And finally, for Gomery to claim in his prepared statement that he followed his points of reference, remaining fair, balanced and unbiased (or soemthing to the effect) left us gagging on the floor. That was the laugh of the day (other than watching a former separatist and former Tory defend Paul Martin against the evildoers in the previous LIBERAL administration).