Linda Duncan, call your office.

Linda Duncan, call your office because it looks like someone is using Parliamentary resources for partisan purposes which is, as you know, strictly against the rules.

Update: I have removed the 'it looks like" line from the original post. At first I thought that perhaps the use of the @parl.gc.ca email address might have been a simple error on behalf of the campus NDP, but that is not the case and I now have concrete proof that Linda Duncan's MP office is indeed using that account  for the partisan door knocking event(s) outlined below. (see end of post for additional info)

(Please note the contact email address, highlighted by me, in the following email)



Email from the UofA NDP Campus club:

Subject: U of A Campus NDP Meeting and Volunteer Requests.

Hello fellow campus New Democrats!

The U of A Campus NDP is planning to re-coordinate our efforts to get

New Democrats seen and heard on campus. If you're interested in being

involved in the club, including planning strategy and bringing in

speakers from the provincial and federal NDP, come to our upcoming

meeting:

(snip)

Also, it is quite likely we will have a federal election called in the

next month or two. Help your Edmonton NDP candidates get ready! Here

are some ways you can help get rid of Stephen Harper's Conservatives

and put progressive MPs in their places:

Re-elect Linda Duncan in Edmonton-Strathcona

Upcoming door-knocking sessions (open to everyone, regardless of

experience level):

Canvass in Windsor Park, Saturday February 12, 1pm:  Please meet at

home of Mary XXXXXX, one of the coordinators for the Windsor Park

team, XXXXX St

Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona, Sunday February 13, 1pm:  Please meet

at the home of Nancy XXXX, Garneau team coordinator, XXXXX,

XXXXXX.  The building has visitor parking and there

is also parking on Saskatchewan Drive.

Canvass in King Edward Park, Sunday, February 20, 1pm: Please meet at

the home of Melinda XXXXXX, 8XXX XX Avenue.

For more information or to sign up for any of the above sessions,

contact Erica Bullwinkle at DuncaL1@parl.gc.ca. 

(Snip)

Hope to see you soon on the campaign trail with us!

Joel French

U of A Campus NDP

(end)


While I don't know the exact reading of the House Board of Internal Economy's rules on the use of government resources for partisan purposes, I am pretty sure that the organizing of 3 separate and purely partisan door knocking events, using an email account from Duncan's Parliamentary office and on Government of Canada servers, fits into the category of things not allowed.


Time to call your office Linda, because someone there is breaking the rules.


The important info from an email ( on the subject of partisan door knocking) forwarded to me this AM. As with the campus NDP email I have removed all the non relevant personal identifiable information.


Updated: With permission, I have now enclosed the entire email body

Return-Path: (duncal1@parl.gc.ca)

Received: from mailer01.parl.gc.ca ([192.197.82.XXX])

Subject: RE: Sunday Feb 13 Canvass in Garneau/Strathcona

(body of email snipped to protect source, but related specifically to the campus email and partisan door knocking and the reply signed by Erica B, acting in the capacity of constituency assistant in Linda Duncan's Edmonton office)



Hi Ron – Terrific!  I will plan for three and if not everyone shows that’s OK.  I just like to make sure I have enough routes and kits.  See you then, Erica

Erica Bullwinkle

Constituency Assistant

Linda Duncan, M.P.

Edmonton-Strathcona

780-495-8404

Fax: 780-495-8403

www.lindaduncan.ndp.ca

Busted!

Smackdown: Ralph Goodale scores on his own net.

Earlier today Liberal MP Ralph Goodale was beside himself with what he called a "big score" for the Liberals against corporate taxes when he tweeted the following:

@RalphGoodale "Libs land a big score against Cons tax cuts for big corps. CFIB-VP says corp tax cuts are NOT in CFIB's Top-11 priorities."        
(FYI CFIB = Canadian Federation of Independent Business)


One small problem though; Ralph has the position of the CFIB totally wrong as explained by CFIB President Catherine Swift.

"As to any confusion over CFIB's support of continuing the corporate tax cuts, we unequivocally support them! The plan should be continued."

"The reason CFIB's so-called top-11 list did not include corporate tax cuts is that we considered them a done deal, not subject to change."

Sorry Ralph but the CFIB is in favour of the tax cuts and they unequivocally do not support the job killing Liberal tax increases you and your party are proposing to inflict upon Canadian business as we come out of a recession.

Your big score was into your own net Ralph.



Related:  The Liberal plan IS a tax increase.    Liberal tax policy folly.

Watch Iranium online for a limited time

Watch the controversial film Uranium Here or at the Iranium website .





Trailer:

Your Sunday morning chuckle.

"Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he is confident his party can make inroads in Alberta."



And how does he know this?

Because Ignatieff knows what Albertans want.
ht JoshGroberman

 

Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position(s) on asbestos

Michael Ignatieff stretches the truth on his position on asbestos while happily attending a big bucks Liberal fundraiser hosted by a businessman leading the charge to reopen one of Canada’s last-remaining asbestos mines. (ironic no?)

"I think that Canada cannot export a product that is dangerous and cannot be handled safely,” Ignatieff said in Montreal. I’ve said that for a long time.”

Well he did say something like that in the past but on one occasion when questioned on that statement that he had made just days earlier, Ignatieff said something else completely.

"We have had 60 years of experience with this product. What I said in answer to a question is that we have an obligation to international agreements to the countries that we export to, to make them aware of the risks. That is all I said."

Causing Kathleen Ruff, senior adviser on human rights for the Ottawa-based think-tank Rideau Institute, to comment on Ignatieff's denial: "I knew he would be under pressure to retract what he said but that's an out-and-out lie"


Confused? Don't worry, you are not alone. Even Liberal candidates don't know Ignatieff's position.

Bérubé (the Liberal candidate selected for the Richmond-Arthabaska riding) argued that Ignatieff did not use the word asbestos and that he was talking hypothetically when asked the question by the Devoir.
“He did not state his opposition to the asbestos industry specifically, just to things that are toxic.”
“I don’t believe our asbestos is a toxic substance and the question of its safety should be examined by a committee after we are elected to government.”
Long-time Liberal Lucien Richard from Asbestos agreed with Bérubé that his party leader did not target the industry in the Devoir interview and hopes to discuss the matter further with Ignatieff.
“I want to hear him say it to me,” said Richard.
“I don’t believe he said the asbestos industry should be stopped.”
Local Liberal organizer André Beaumier said Ignatieff met with industry officials in early June and argues the industry will not be shut down by a future Liberal government.
“Our studies have shown that the fiber mined here is safe if handled carefully. “
“If Ignatieff said it was a dangerous industry, I don’t think he knew all the facts then. I am sure he will change his mind on this issue.”


and who can really blame them for not knowing Ignatieff's position, it is always hard to hit a moving target.
 

Compounding bad journalism: an example from this weekend.

It is bad enough when examples of poor journalism, not so much simple errors but the blatantly obvious stuff, gets published but when that same bad journalism gets cited or used in the works of others it not only exposes the laziness of our MSM, it also shows us the inside baseball, don't criticize/question those in the bubble mentality, that is prevalent among our so called professional journalists.

On Saturday Susan Delacourt filed a piece in the Toronto Star under the headline: "Tories planning a spring election?"  in which she wrote that a source had told her that a Conservative Party fundraiser had called them up on the phone and let it slip that there would be an election on March 29, 2011; 'letting the cat out of the bag'.  Delacourt went on to write that the CPC had denied the Mar 29 date but basically ignored the denial and continued on with the premise of a March 29th election going so far as to formulate just how a March 29 election date was possible by counting back the days on a calender and checking the House of Commons schedule before 'assuming' that PM Harper would be paying a call on the Governor-General asking for Parliament to be dissolved forcing an election. 

When I initially read that story on Saturday morning I started a blog post where I Fisked the article line by line but soon gave up as it became clear that the entire story was too much of a joke for anyone to take seriously.  It looks like I was wrong and that I have seriously underestimated the ability of some in Canada's main stream media to show even the most basic common sense in their reporting. (more on this later)

First off the entire article was based on hear-say, which should always raise red flags as to the reliability of the information. Hear-say evidence is so unreliable that rarely, if ever, is it allowed to be used a court of law.


Next the story is based on the totally implausible premise that a person working the fund-raising phone bank, who may not even be a party supporter, would themselves have such deep knowledge of the most secret party policy & time-lines and then would divulge that secret information to some random person who they have never met and who told them that they were not even a party supporter.  (Seriously, that does not make sense in any way, shape, or form)

And lastly, the entire theory of a March 29 election is flat out IMPOSSIBLE because Canadian federal elections always take place on a Monday, unless it is a statutory holiday which is not the case.  One might think that those reporting on Parliament might know that, but obviously they don't or this story would never had seen the light of day or had any type of afterlife.



But this blog entry is not about the Delacourt story, it is about how others in the media have decided to compound this bad journalism by using/citing her story with the (impossible) March 29 date in their own work ignoring the obvious problems and the many criticisms from out of the bubble.Delacourt's article was blasted in blogs and comments across the land within hours of its publication and one didn't even have to venture past the comments at the bottom of the page at the Star to realize that the story was bunk and its value questionable. Yet it lived on.


First the Toronto Star: "Reports over the weekend said Prime Minister Stephen Harper is considering a federal election for this spring with a possible date of March 29."  ( Not to be critical but shouldn't that read report, you know without the S?) Not that I am surprised that the Star would use the nonsense from Delacourt as they were the ones that published it in the first place, but considering all of the criticism her original piece garnered wouldn't you think that an editor somewhere might pick up that there might be a problem and that perhaps it would not be the best source to use in another story? Of course that would assume that they bother listening to any criticisms or even care about truth or accuracy.


The next example comes from Jennifer Ditchburn of the Canadian Press, but her use of the 'March 29th' date was not to come in print form as one might expect from the Canadian Press reporter with the Parliament Hill beat. Instead Jennifer would go on national television to tell the entire country about the March 29, 2011 election day theory based solely on Delacourt's article . Listen to what she said below.

She starts out by praising her "fine colleague Susan Delacourt" and then proceeds into the March 29 election date theory laughing with Jane and Craig. While Ditchburn seems to just be reporting what her colleague wrote and may not have known how badly that article had been trashed, although I find it hard to believe that a reporter could read that article and not have concerns or questions, she gets something fundamentally wrong about Delacourt's story. Listen to it again and note that it appears that she is saying that an election will be called March 29th and not held on March 29th. Interesting because if you read the article it is quite clear that it says an election would take place ON March 29th as the very first line reads: "The Conservatives are planning for a March 29 election..."  and later on reads: "“She replied that the election would be on March 29th..."  and still farther into the article reads:   "A March 29 election would have to be called sometime before Feb. 22 for a minimum, 36-day campaign. But since the Commons is not sitting that week in February, it’s assumed the election would be kicked off simply by Harper paying a call on the Governor-General and asking for Parliament to be dissolved."

So what was Ditchburn really trying to say on during her Question Period segment?  I was not so sure at first and thought that maybe I would not be able to use her comments for this blog post as she seemed to be just reporting on what Delacourt had written, as I and others have done, but I subsequently found out later Sunday evening what she did intend to say about the March 29th date and also answered my question about the suitability of using her comments at the same time.

It all came to be when she responded to a Tweet I had made earlier in the evening.

albertaardvark: To @SusanDelacourt @jenditchburn & others pushing the Mar 29 election theory... Elections are always held on a Monday! That is all.

jenditchburn: @Albertaardvark I think the person meant Mar. 29th as the day for dropping the writ.

So there you have it.  Ditchburn was indeed trying to say that the election would be called March 29th and not be held on March 29th; making me wonder, considering how wrong she was about its contents, if she had actually read the Delacourt article that she cited on national television, but leaving no doubt at all that her comments fit into a blog post on bad journalism.

Related: another fine example of journalism from Jeniffer Ditchburn. Guergis had a history in the clubs with the hometown playboy.

 -------------------

As stated earlier, many bloggers had written about the Delacourt article. In time I will try to link to them all below. (let me know in the comments if there are others)

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/who-exactly-is-this-don-burroughs-in-stars-delacourt-story/

 

http://hincheysstore.blogspot.com/2011/01/for-my-200th-post-have-i-got-story-for.html

http://unambig.com/conservatives-to-call-election-says-unknown-person/


http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-*#*#-is-don-burroughs.html (NSFW)

and of course Blue Like You where you will find plenty of comments on this subject in the comments!

CTVGate: CTV cuts 2 seconds out of Ignatieff's answer

And what a difference 2 seconds can make.

Watch the video.  (Now available on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egy2POCd8tM )

  

What Ignatieff actually said: "”We think that Bill Gates, the secretary of defence, knows full well the problems with the F-35s,..."

What CTV chose to put on the air:  ”..., the secretary of defence, knows full well the problems with the F-35s,..."

A big difference don't you think?

Imagine that, CTV left out a major gaffe by a politician. Perhaps it is their policy not to show slip ups of politicians, or than again maybe not as the very next segment aired dealt with another gaffe from a politician, this time our Minister of National Defence.

One was given its own story, while the other seemed to be edited out and never mentioned.

Why the difference in coverage?


Update: Even in their print stories on this subject, CTV manages to leave out Ignatieff's "Bill Gates" quote :
 Gates "knows full well the problems with the F-35. This thing is late, it's over-budget," Ignatieff told reporters at an event in Montreal. While Peter MacKay's comment gets fully reported on in print by CTV.     (HT to Joanne @  BLY)

Update3: How important are gaffes to CTV? Do they think they are worth covering?:  If you look at the pic from Lisa LaFlamme's twitter account below, you can see that in the week previous she made 6 tweets.

2 of those were about MacKay's gaffe and the CTV coverage of them. 

So yes, it does look like CTV not only believes that gaffes are important and worth covering, they also appear to believe that their coverage of those gaffes was worthy of promotion over the other news of the day.

So again I have to ask; why the difference in coverage between what Peter MacKay said and what Michael Ignatieff said?


Update 2: During the same presser and after the Bill Gates gaffe, Ignatieff had the gall to attack Peter MacKay on his gaffe: "Well, I just think our minister of defence should get a map," 

Too funny.  Michael Ignatieff, he does not attack people (40 second mark), he attacks irony.

HT Wilson in the comments @ Blue Like You.

Dear CPC:

Dear CPC, it might be wise in the future to perhaps bounce some of the stuff coming out of the war room off some friendly supporters before going public. We work for free, are familiar with politics, spin and it's effects, and I can guarantee you that it will save you some grief.

Thanks
Albertaardvark
part of a vast right wing untapped resource.

Call it like it is: The Liberal plan is a tax increase .

For days now we all have been hearing from the media about the Liberal plan to 'rescind', 'defeat', or 'cancel' the conservative corporate tax cuts that are supposedly in the next budget, but there are a couple of problems with that.

#1. The budget contains NO corporate tax cuts. None, zero, nada. There is nothing to oppose or defeat as these cuts have been in place since 2007 and have just been implemented as scheduled starting January 1st 2011. Why the misleading headlines? Your guess is as good as mine.

#2. Since the cuts are ALREADY in place any change to the tax code would not be merely be a cancellation of a proposed cut but rather a tax increase over the current rates.   Companies would pay more than they are paying today, and that is a tax increase!

Think of it this way; if (more likely when) Ignatieff increases the GST would anyone refer to that move as simply canceling a tax cut?  OK, some in the MSM probably would but they don't seem to understand the situation most of the time before they actually report on it, as the coverage of Ignatieff's corporate tax increase clearly shows.

Call it like it is, the Liberal plan is a tax increase.

And if they do manage to somehow get elected I will wager that it won't be the only one we will see either.

GST hike anyone? 

Liberal corporate tax policy folly.

I was thinking that the use of the word folly might be a bit over the top, but looking at the Ignatieff Liberals new found position on corp tax cuts, I can't think of another word that better describes the Liberal Party of Canada and their corporate tax policy than "folly".  See if you don't agree as we look at some history and how the Liberals are trying to spin what could be a major policy plank for them in any upcoming election.

First up it is a complete flip flop and a radical change from what has been a long standing Liberal policy. This graph courtesy of LPC shows that since 2000, when Jean Chretien was PM with Paul Martin as his finance minister, through Martin's term, and right up until Ignatieff decided otherwise, Liberal policy has been to reduce Canada's corporate tax rate.

 Link to graph.
Ignatieff himself ran 2 times with corporate tax cuts included as part of the Liberal platform, the first under Paul Martin in 2006, and again in 2008 under the leadership of Dion, which makes that the position Ignatieff was elected on and promised to implement for the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore as their MP.  Some have tried to spin this abandonment of part of the platform that Ignatieff  was elected on by claiming that the LPC tax cut plan was just a minor part of part of Dion's platform, but history says otherwise as it was those promised corporate tax cuts that Dion cited as the reason why he would not form a coalition government with Jack Layton and the NDP.  In fact Dion called the NDP position "damaging".

Mr. Dion, speaking after an address to a Vancouver-area business crowd today, said he could not work with Mr. Layton in this way because the NDP leader wants to hike taxes on business.

“We cannot have a coalition with a party that has a platform that would be damaging for the economy. Period,” the Liberal leader said.  (If Dion cited them as the reason for not joining Jack and Gilles (at that point in time still a silent partner) they WERE indeed a major part of the platform.)



The Liberals themselves can see how this reversal of a sound LPC policy doesn't look good so they have decided to spin the flip flop by claiming to support corporate tax cuts but not while in a deficit position. Not a bad angle to use if you are trying to play both ends and cover the obvious hypocrisy of ones position, but a couple of little details are going to make that spin job difficult if not impossible. First is the fact that when Dion was touting his tax cut plan in the 2008 election we were ALREADY in recession and headed for a deficit, making it tough to say now that they support tax cuts but not in a deficit when the Liberal Party ran on cuts and were fully prepared to implement those cuts while the country was in a deficit; but expect them to try and do just that in the hope that nobody is paying attention. Another thing that makes this a tough sell happened just last night when some guy named  Barrack Obama (who causes both reporters (see bio) and politicians to swoon) openly called for corporate tax cuts in the USA at a time of record US deficits in the neighborhood of 1.3 Trillion dollars a year!
 “But all the rest [of our companies] are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change. So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.”  (Is Obama wrong?  I await to see how the Liberals twist themselves in knots trying to spin this as I am sure hilarity will ensue.) And in case anyone has forgotten , the Liberals had ample opportunity in the past to vote against these tax increases and for their own reasons chose not to do so; to claim now that you are against tax cuts that you allowed to pass into law is approaching silly.


Next up is a 'little detail' that so far seems to have eluded most of our MSM  in their coverage of the subject.
The Liberal plan on corporate tax cuts is not just rescinding a proposed cut, it is actually a tax increase as  these rates are now in place and are already the law.

 "The Liberals are calling for rates to be restored to the 2010 level of 18.5 per cent, up from the 16.5 per cent rate that came into effect this month." (So much for any Liberal promise not to raise taxes as they have already broken that promise before the writ is even dropped.) I am sure our MSM will soon realize the error of their ways and be more accurate in their reporting of the Liberal corporate tax increase in the future.


Is there really a better word than' folly' to describe this?

Update: Ignatieff is claiming that education creates more jobs than corporate tax breaks will.   True to form Ignatieff ignores the realities of just who provides the jobs and wealth in our country. Hint: It is not government.  Education on its own is not going to create jobs; sure there may be some entrepreneurs in there who may start their own  businesses (which will be hindered by paying Ignatieff's tax increase) but the majority will seek and hopefully find work in the private sector who have been suffering through tough economic times.  The truth is that education on its own will not create more jobs than a tax cut for those that provide the jobs would and it certainly will not protect already existing jobs that may be in danger today due to the poor economy (sorry Jack but all companies that pay taxes are not banks or big oil)    Look at it this way: If every company in Canada closed their doors tomorrow because they could not afford to remain open and put everyone out of work, all that education would have done would be to make our EI recipients smarter.  More from Freedom is my Nationality and Angry in the great white north.

Ignatieff must know this but yet he continues on with the follies.

-----------------

Related:

The NDP, bless their little socialist hearts, put together an overview of the Liberal corporate tax position that can be seen here, and kudos to the NDP for for doing so because not only have they outed Ignatieff on the tax cuts they inadvertently also skewered  themselves in the process by revealing just how willing the NDP is to toss their so called principles in the quest for power.

Remember earlier when I wrote about how Dion ruled out a coalition with the NDP during the last election? Well think back to how that ended up turning out as Dion did end up forming a coalition with Layton and the NDP. What could have possibly changed Dion's mind you ask, well the answer to that is simple.

Jack Layton agreed to keep and fully support Dion's proposed corporate tax cuts (which were larger than the Conservative cuts BTW) just so he could get a cabinet seat. You want to see hypocrisy Mr. Layton, just look into the mirror because that sir is a classic example of hypocrisy of the worst kind.

And where was Micheal Ignatieff during all of this? He of course was fully aware of the deal between Dion and Layton on the corporate tax cuts and must have been in agreement because after all, he did sign on to it.


Links: Ignatieff doesn't get it. Financial Post.

A look at the numbers.

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach will not run for re-election.

During a news conference Tuesday morning, Premier Ed Stelmach told reporters he won't run in the next provincial election.

"I am not prepared to serve another full term as premier," said Stelmach.


And with that, PC's all across the province breathe a sigh of relief.

But will it be enough?

The sheer political genius of Stephen Harper.

With one comment, about personally supporting capital punishment in certain circumstances but who as our PM has no intention of bringing forward as gov't policy*, Stephen Harper has changed the game.

Just watch and see.

 * If anyone out there honestly believes that the PM made his televised comments without knowing the 'fallout', IMHO they are being willfully blind or are sadly under estimating Stephen Harper the politician.

Brilliant line: "He didn't come back for you."

Truth in advertising:








As the great Homer Simpson said:  'It is funny 'cause its true!'

Mr. Ignatieff. Please answer your own question.

On Wednesday Michael Ignatieff again went out on the road in an effort to (re) introduce himself to the Canadian public as if somehow the forth time will be the charm. At a Liberal Party function, which was held in the back of a restaurant located in a small suburban Ottawa mall, Ignatieff lead off his stump speech with what the LPC hope will become the 'ballot question' in the next federal election.

"Are you and your family better off now than five years ago?" .

Aside from the fact that the line was blatantly stolen from Ronald Reagan, which I mentioned yesterday, something else has been bothering me about Ignatieff's campaign query. What would Michael Ignatieff's answer be if he was asked his own question?


Seriously, assuming that he would be honest and give a straight answer, what would Michael Ignatieff's answer be?
(Perhaps someone in our fine Canadian media establishment would be so kind to ask him so we all could find out. Hint Hint)

 

I say the answer has to be a resounding yes. Micheal Ignatieff  is indeed much better off now than he was 5 years ago. (Speaking only on the financial aspect, which considering that we have just been through a nasty recession, I assume was what Ignatieff was referring to with his question) Here is why:

On January 14, 2006, after recently returning to Canada after 27 years away, Michael Ignatieff was busy running in his first election to be the LPC MP for Etobicoke Lakeshore. He won his riding but the Paul Martin lead Liberal Party lost power and Ignatieff made his way onto the Liberal back benches where he would be compensated with a wage of  $147,700. Assuming that he sat on a couple of committees etc, I think we can safely round it up to $160K. (plus travel, office etc)


5 years later in January 2011 Micheal Ignatieff is now the leader of the official opposition with a salary $233,247, a residence (Stornoway), an office budget of $3.2 million, a car allowance of $2,122, and perhaps even some kind of top up or other perks from the Liberal Party itself. Not to mention that the job of leader of the opposition carries with it much more prestige as well as other intangibles that no ordinary MP enjoys.


Sounds to me like Micheal Ignatieff better hope that nobody in the media can take a hint and asks him to honestly answer his own question, because financially speaking he certainly is better off today than he was 5 years ago.

 -----------

Sort of related and good news for all Canadians including Ignatieff, not that he would ever acknowledge it though, as Canada's economy outperforms the G7.

The Liberals are in full campaign mode

Leader out on tour (again!) Check.  (btw how many do-overs does this guy get on 'introducing himself' to Canadians?)

Slogan/ballot question. Check.  ( Although it was blatantly stolen from Ronald Reagan, and shows that the Liberals still have no original ideas, at least give 'em credit for the attempt.)

Scare monger. ("You're going to get four more years of Stephen Harper if you vote for (NDP Leader) Jack Layton or (Bloc Quebecois Leader) Gilles Duceppe, it's that simple,") Check.

Take the low road with a couple of smears. Check.


This sure looks like a campaign to me; about the only thing missing was Ignatieff conceding defeat and pleading to the Canadian public not to give PM Harper a majority, but it is still early and the real campaign has yet to begin.

Keep your powder dry. The real show will begin soon enough.

Election in 2011. Yes or no?

Do you believe that there will be a federal election in 2011?  

Personally I don't believe we will, unless the Liberals "push" Ignatieff into it (possible) and the NDP and Bloc both decide to play along (less likely), but there seem to be many who do think that we will be heading to the polls in 2011.

What do you think and why?

Congratulations Kate.

Congratulations Kate on hitting 20,000,000 visitors to Small Dead Animals.


BTW:  

I am not sure if I was the one or it was some sort of glitch but it makes for a cool screenshot either way.

WIll Justin Trudeau defend the charter from Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette

Quick, someone call Justin Trudeau!

Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette continues on her quest to make herself the laughingstock of Canadian politics by perusing passage of Senate Bill S-206. The bill would require Parliament to ensure that all publicly traded companies, banks, insurance companies and trust companies to have 50% of their board of directors made up of women. Nanny state nonsense, which goes against not only the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Liberals everywhere like to pretend that they are so concerned over but also against common sense and such basic ideals such as merit based advancement, all in the name of political correctness.

Here is what she said on S-206 in June 2009: She argues that last fall's market meltdown, which has sparked a deep worldwide recession, is the result of having a relatively small coterie of men holding multiple directorships in a host of corporations.

She suggests that bad investments might have been avoided had more women been sitting on boards, bringing fresh eyes and a more independent, prudent approach to decision-making than the `old boys' club.'
I may be old fashioned but blaming the market meltdown on men sounds sort of sexist if you ask me, but being part of the old boys club by virtue of my parts, I guess my judgment may be clouded by those very same parts, so I had best leave that sexist definition up to the rest of you to decide. (that is as long as your parts are deemed acceptable)

--------------

Some related background on the esteemed Liberal Senator:

From a letter written to an American family concerned with the seal hunt: They should be more concerned with "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners -- mainly blacks -- in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy, etc." than the seal hunt.

Criticizing Alberta's Culture:  discussing statistics and how support for her bill was "off course" lower in Alberta than in Quebec because "we don't have the same culture" and went on to say in way of an explanation after being called out by host Tom Clarke "I am just telling you that maybe we (Quebec) have the appropriate way of dealing with children and education is different then hitting a child."  Not that her arrogant and clueless statement was enough she went on to laughingly say "We have some support in Alberta? That is news for me."

Filing a complaint against CTV and Bob Fife for doing their jobs, with just a bit of libel thrown in for good measure. ( "...and CTV is paid to broadcast these schemes.")


Where is Justin Trudeau and the "party of the charter" when you really need them?



Related: BC Blue on Payette.

Interesting Youtube video on affirmative action.

The lyrics PM Harper added to Sweet Caroline.

As most of you know PM Harper had a little fun performing a few songs at the CPC Christmas party this year and by all indications he was a big hit; but what most don't know is that the PM added an additional verse to the Neil Diamond classic Sweet Caroline. (Listen @ approx 3:20 and though hard to see, the PM is singing to the left side of the stage where his wife, Laureen Harper, is located)

But now I open my eyes...

With every dawn that wakes me

Seeing your face I feel the sun.

 And as I take every shot life throws at me

Here by my side you are the one.

Hearts...touching hearts

Reaching out

Touching me

Touching you

 

Song Lyrics

Considering the amount of media attention the PM's performance garnered I am surprised that the re-written lyrics went almost unnoticed, but I guess the media had other more important things to write about.

-------------------

Now the big question:

Does the PM now qualify to get a share of the iPod tax ( or the already existing, thanks to the Liberal Party of Canada, levy on all blank tapes/CD's sold in Canada) ?    =)

Globe and Mail pulls Norman Spector story on PM's marriage

Updated: This page has been a favorite link from many of the Harper hating internet groups out to find anything at all to discredit the Prime Minister with and they are more than happy to use a bullshit story to promote their hating agenda. This is the loony left in action folks, beware of ANYTHING they tell you because it, like the Spector article below, is BS.

 Original Post:

After almost every journalist covering politics called out Spector's blog entry for being BS, the Globe has decided to pull the entry because " it fell short of The Globe and Mail's editorial standards with respect to fairness, balance and accuracy."  It makes one wonder though, if this story was so far off the Globe's standards, how did it ever make it up in the first place?

Because the blog entry has itself became the story, and because it has now been removed, here it is in it's entirety:

Norman Spector

Globe and Mail Blog

Posted on Friday, December 24, 2010 6:25AM EST

Perusing the Special Holiday Edition of my morning read, I see that Laureen Harper has given her first television interview with the Prime Minister since he took office in 2006. And that we’ll all get to see her full nine minutes under the lights tomorrow night, when Lloyd Robertson and Robert Fife sit down with Mr. Harper for their annual one-hour chat on CTV.

According to The Globe article, Ms. Harper “is not shy at all...she has a wonderful sense of humour and a good political nose – but she has declined offers to sit down with journalists, preferring not to be the story. Rather, she wants the light to shine on the work of her husband and his government. …(Cynics may think that the couple agreed to the interview because an election may not be far away).”


Perhaps. But, I think that something else is at play here.

Three weeks ago, a most extraordinary paragraph appeared in a column published in the Ottawa Citizen. It read as follows:

“In Ottawa, tongues have been wagging for two years about trouble in one political marriage. One of the partners is now said to have left the nest. It hasn't made the newspapers, at least not yet.”

The column was written by Andrew Cohen—who’s not your ordinary thumb-sucker—and you would expect that it would have elicited a reaction. For one thing, Mr. Cohen is President of The Historica-Dominion Institute (http://www.historica-dominion.ca/en/), “the largest, independent organization dedicated to Canadian history, identity and citizenship.” He’s also an Associate Professor of Journalism at Carleton University—the premier school of its kind in Canada. For another thing, Mr. Cohen has a long and distinguished career as a journalist himself, including stints as a member of the Globe and Mail editorial board, and as foreign editor and foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Post. As to his political preferences, I’d simply observe from having followed his writings over the years that Mr. Cohen once worshipped at the feet of Pierre Trudeau. And that the same cannot be said of his views of Stephen Harper.

In any case, Mr. Cohen’s “tongue-wagging” column was subsequently picked up by only one other PostMedia paper, the Windsor Star—a thinner take-up than usual for his offerings. And then there was silence—at least on the record.
 
Perhaps the silence was due to the limited circulation of the two papers that carried the column. Or maybe it was because the reference to the troubled marriage came at the end of the column, and many readers would likely have missed it. Or, and this is my guess, the same factors that kept the rumour of a troubled marriage out of the papers for the past two years continued to be at play.


Having been in the business myself, my guess is that there was one group of readers who would not have missed the reference to the troubled political marriage: staff at the PMO—up to and including the Chief of Staff--and the Prime Minister himself. In particular, none of these readers would have missed the kicker in the paragraph: that it was only a matter of time until someone reported the rumour--with names attached.


These days, being as far away from Ottawa as one can get, it was only a few months ago that I caught wind of rumours that the first couple (to borrow an Americanism) were living separately (Mr. Harper at 24 Sussex, Ms. Harper at the Chateau Laurier). And, truth be told, I learned this startling news, dear reader, in the comment boards on this website. Intrigued, I checked out the rumour with two journalists in Ottawa. From both, I got the sense that it was likely true. And that it was not being reported because it was deemed to be a personal matter.

I found this reasoning to be a bit strange—if the PM’s marriage was in trouble, that was something that could affect his performance and lead to bizarre decisions. (Have you heard about the census being abolished?) And given the power of the office, the troubled marriage could impact all Canadians. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged this, according to the Globe report, in one of his answers in the Christmas interview:
Asked about the stresses and strains of the job on their relationship, the Prime Minister jumped in to answer:

“Well, you know, we have a strong relationship,” said Mr. Harper. “I think, to be frank about it, I mean the demands are all on Laureen. Laureen is a very giving person. Laureen allows me to concentrate as fully as I do on the job and then on other things. She doesn’t put a lot of demands on me.”

The Prime Minister said his wife’s support is one of the reasons he has been “successful in this business.”

Having worked in the PMO myself, my guess is that Mr. Harper and his advisers have been struggling for some time over the best way to put paid to the rumours of marital discord.. In the wake of Mr. Cohen’s column, wait-and-hold-your-breath was no longer an attractive option. To deny the rumors formally would be counter-productive, as it would make out of them a huge news story that the media would have no choice but to report. The option decided upon--an interview with two friendly broadcasters—was the best course of action in the circumstances--and Christmas night you’ll get to see the results for yourself. A warning to all you Stephen Harper non-fans out there, however: Unless you have a PVR, you’ll have to stick with the interview to the end to see Ms. Harper scotch the rumours as untrue—albeit indirectly.

 --------------

A selection of media comments on the Spector entry as found on twitter:

Kady O'Malley: You know, sometimes when someone says there really isn't a story there, it means there really isn't a story there.

Susan Delacourt: Okay. Here it is. About those rumours. http://bit.ly/hBwAye #cdnpoli Enough already.

Rob Silver: Norman Spector will be relaunching Frank magazine in January. Unfortunately he will only have year old rumors everyone has already heard.

Dan Gardner: Exactly. http://bit.ly/hBwAye It would be shameful and silly in high school, which is a pretty good sign it's not responsible journalism.

Paul Wells: Why does the Globe and Mail keep Norman Spector around? I protested when Maclean's dumped him 5 years ago. But I was wrong.

More Wells: Comments disabled on Spector's Harper rant, and all comments erased. The story itself, apparently, violates no policy. 

Rosemary Barton: Oh for the record, Norman Spector is not a journalist. He's a guy who is allowed to write stuff. Big difference. Back to Holidays!

Kady again: That's right, @globeandmail. If there's one thing you can count on, it's that no one ever notices when something vanishes from the internet.

and still more Paul Wells: Norman Spector stands repudiated by his publisher on grounds of professionalism. He has no choice but to apologize or resign.

Screenshot from the Globe and Mail politics blog.

The Sergeant: An Alberta Politics spoof. ( and damn funny)

This has to be the funniest thing (political) I have seen in some time. Kudos to ALL involved!!




For those unfamiliar with Alberta politics.

The Cast:
Brian Mason, Leader of the NDP as the Sergeant.
Rachel Notley, NDP MLA as Corporal Notley.
Danielle Smith, Leader of the Wildrose Alliance as herself.
Paul Hinman, WRA MLA as himself
Guy Boutilier, WRA MLA (former PC MLA) as himself
Rob Anderson, WRA MLA (also a former PC MLA) as himself
Raj Sherman, Independent MLA (former PC MLA) as himself

ht Daveberta.ca

A Merry Christmas to all

Merry Christmas to everyone who has stopped by my little piece of cyberspace over this past year and here is hoping that you and yours have a great 2011.

Please enjoy my second favorite Christmas Film. (FYI: It is a Wonderful Life is #1)

From Canada's own NFB.

Rex Murphy on Ignatieff: "I fear he is in a fantasy too deep for rescue."

Rex Murphy in today's National Post.

"And, finally, Mr. Ignatieff just doesn't seem to have the "tune" of Canadian politics yet. In one of his year-end musings he offered one of -- to my mind--the most outre observations ever on his own sense of his relation to Canadian voters: He seemed to be saying that he shares some of the appeal of Toronto conservative maverick Rob Ford. If Mr. Ignatieff seriously thinks that people look at Rob Ford and Michael Ignatieff and count up the similarities, I fear he is in a fantasy too deep for rescue."

I personally think that Ignatieff's musings are going to come to the same fate as they did when he uttered his famous "Mr. Harper your time is up" in September 2009, but who knows. That fantasy Ignatieff seems to be living in just may cause him to roll the dice sooner rather than later.

Justin Trudeau class(less) act

Today the 2 newest CPC MPs ( Robert Sopuck and Julian Fantino) were introduced to Parliament and as per tradition they were given a standing ovation by all MPs present.

All MPs except for Justin Trudeau that is.

Really classy Justin, real classy. Just toss aside 100's of years of Parliamentary tradition and the basic concept of respect because you are upset with Fanitno's democratic victory and decided to have a temper tantrum. Now that is LPC leadership material if I ever saw it!


Speaking of classy; here is our Justin making an ass of himself on CTVs Question Period talking over and badgering Shelly Glover who later described Trudeau's antics: “Justin is one of the worst examples of lack of decorum and lack of professionalism and lack of maturity that I have ever seen.”



Related: Waking up to the Trudeau hangover. (Ottawa Citizen)

Some light Sunday reading for your enjoyment: Persichilli on Justin Trudeau

Angelo Persichilli's article in today's the Toronto Star:

While I have great respect for the Liberal party of the past and a lot of hope for the one of the future, it’s no secret that I have many doubts about the present Liberal leadership, which is long on gimmickry and short on policies. The most recent gimmick was the involvement of Justin Trudeau in two electoral campaigns in Ontario.
I understand that Trudeau, as a Liberal, has the duty to answer when his party sends a distress call. But as an intelligent person, which I believe he is, he should understand that there are basic rules of engagement....

Read the rest at the link, and remember that many honestly believe that JT will be the savior of the Liberal Party of Canada.  I hope that brings a smile to your face this Sunday.

Santa Kinsella on Ignatieff

Warren Kinsella: I increasingly doubt that he (Ignatieff) will ever become Prime Minister. He’s trying hard, however, so one never knows. But this week’s battery of polls – with Ekos increasingly looking like the outlier – have to have him wondering why he ever left Harvard.


Ouch.

CBC President Hubert Lacroix wants into your living room

..or at least on the TV in your living room.

CBC president Hubert Lacroix : "Cable and satellite firms should be mandated to carry CBC and Radio-Canada signals "

Could someone explain to me why having the state owned and taxpayer funded CBC be a must carry on satellite and cable is OK, but giving SunTV (a network yet to broadcast anything BTW)  the same must status was an affront to all that as fair and Canadian?



 Don't worry CBC, it gets better.

When you grow up and move out on your own (go private) the rest of the media will treat you with more respect.




Updated: Obvious typo in title fixed

Stephen Harper: Rock Star!!

The PM had some fun tonight at the CPC Christmas party. ( Crushing the opposition narrative at the same time)

Set list:

"Sweet Caroline" (Neil Diamond)
"I'm on My Way" (The Proclaimers)
"The Seeker" (The Who)
"Share the Land" (The Guess Who)
"Jumpin' Jack Flash" (Rolling Stones)   (love the 'smell of sulfur' comment)


Videos:





CBC:   Entire concert

Akin: Entire concert / in 5 separate videos.

"Jumpin' Jack Flash"


The audio can be downloaded here courtesy of David Akin. 



Related: The PM sings the Beatles.

also related from the Star.

Japan will oppose Kyoto Protocol extension.

You read that right.

"Japan won't agree to extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 even if that means isolating itself at the U.N. climate change talks next week in Cancun, Mexico, a senior Japanese negotiator said Thursday."


"Even if the issue of extending the Kyoto Protocol becomes a major item on the agenda in Cancun and Japan finds itself isolated, Japan will not agree to this."

Reuters.

The Japan Times.


I think Steven Taylor (HT) said it best here.

Gunter on Edmonton EXPO 2017

Lorne Gunter in the National Post: Edmonton didn't need an Expo. 

A couple of excerpts
"But I have to admit I'm glad Ottawa chose, this week, to deny federal funding to Expo 2017. This event had "huge white elephant" written all over it."

"The Vancouver Olympics were supposed to bring in more billions than they cost. Yet despite being brilliantly run -- truly a world-class event -- the games have saddled taxpayers with hundreds of millions in debt. Just the overrun at the athletes' village will hit nearly three-quarters-of-a-billion dollars."

"Because of its perceived out-of-the-way location, Knoxville never attracted all the international pavilions it had planned for and ended up burdening the city with a $46-million debt -- and Knoxville never envisioned using its expo the way Edmonton did to justify massive transit upgrades and urban redevelopments."

Read it all.

I agree 100%. This decision looks to have averted a major disaster for not only the tax payers of Edmonton and Alberta, but from the rest of Canada as well. The amount of pork in the bid, that had nothing to do with the EXPO event itself, combined with the inevitable cost overruns and the low balled security costs make the decision by the Feds to deny funding the right choice. For all of us.

BTW would the Mayor, or any other supporters, explain to me just why the taxpayers of Canada were being asked to pay for the following:

EXPO 2017 will also generate new opportunities to increase the positive impression the city makes upon visitors, such as the construction of a signature bridge over the river to enhance the connection between the southside and downtown. Another is the redevelopment of the Legislature grounds and the West Rossdale area in time to celebrate Canada's 150th anniversary. At the regional level, increasing access and enhancement to the river valley park system and using the river as a transportation conduit between downtown and the South Campus site could be lasting legacies for the entire community.

when they have nothing really to do with the EXPO event itself.

They may be wonderful ideas but it is deceitful to have the rest of the country pay for them under the guise of them being needed for EXPO 2017.

A note to the rest of Canada from Edmonton.

Don't buy into the BS on Edmontonians reaction to the federal government not backing our Expo bid because the average Edmontonian could give a rats ass about it. 

To date I have yet to meet one single Edmontonian who has even mentioned our cities Expo bid, and if I broached the subject, every single one said it was a waste of money.  

Alberta Health Services logic

Problem: Patients backed up in Emergency rooms because of lack of beds on the hospital wards are causing increased wait times.

Solution: Put MORE patients onto the already full hospital wards.


It is almost like the entire operation is being run by a Muppet.


BTW this plan is just the 2007(which is STILL in effect at our larger hospitals) plan revamped.  It didn't work; if it did we wouldn't be having the same problem today would we.

Alberta's very own Cookie Monster?

Alberta Health Services President/CEO Stephen Duckett, the media, and a cookie!


video from CTV Edmonton.




Stephen Duckett made $744,000 last year. $595,000 base salary and $76,619 in performance bonuses .



Related:
Today AHS announced a plan to improve the current 'emergency room crisis' which in reality is just the 2007 plan re-announced. Moving people from the ER into hallways or 3 beds to a 2 bed room etc on other hospital wards is already common practice in many hospitals in Alberta and has been since 2007.

The new (old) plan may make a nice sound bite ( at least better than the CEO's) and it might keep the masses of their backs for a while, but I see nothing in it that is really going to help the current situation in our hospitals.

Ross Rebagliati's candidacy goes up in smoke

Ross Rebagliati, Olympic gold medal winner infamous for testing positive for marijuana, has decided not to run as the Liberal Party candidate in Okanagan–Coquihalla.

How bad must it be in the Liberal Party right now if they can't even convince Ross to stick with them.

Related: a couple of posts from the Ice Man. Here and here.

From your MSM: 2 Articles. 1 Shoddy, 1 Cheap,

Yesterday was not a banner day for journalism in Canada.

First up from CTV News comes the Shoddy:

 Term-limit Senate bill shot down in the House.

The Conservative government has failed in its bid to push through a bill that would have limited senator terms to eight years.The bill required unanimous support in order to pass in the House, but the opposition parties denied the Conservative plan to send the bill directly to the Senate for approval.

Hands down the worst bit of journalism I read today in spite of the author(s) trying so hard to explain parliamentary procedure to us dumb Canadians. Reading the above story one might assume that the fate of Bill C 10 (the actual name of the senate term limit bill though this is NOT FOUND IN THE ARTICLE) had been settled and that it was dead, but you could not be more wrong.  Bill C 10 is alive & well and in fact will come up for a vote later today and then go on to committee for study. What happened yesterday was only an attempt to by-pass (fast track) the bill, nothing more, and it has no effect at all on its life.

But you wouldn't know that by reading that CTV story would you.

 

Next comes the cheap from See Magazine and its author former Liberal MLA Maurice Tougas.

(highlighting mine)

The Perils of Leadership


The burgeoning Alberta Party held its policy convention in Red Deer on the weekend.....

An example of what a charismatic leader can do for a party is, of course, Danielle Smith of the Wildrose Alliance. Smith is the Bobby Hull of Alberta politics. Without Smith, the Wildrose Alliance would be a party of right-wing cranks. With Smith, the Wildrose Alliance is a party of right-wing cranks, but with a hot leader. That’s a different thing entirely.

This may be the case with the comely Ms. Smith (how’s that for a segue?). The WAP leader got the full interview treatment from the Globe and Mail on Saturday, and it was revealing — beginning with the 6” x 12 1/2 “ photo. Smith is pictured with the top two buttons of her blouse undone, with the third barely hanging on, as if to say “Join the Wildrose Alliance, and I’ll pop the third button.”


Seriously See Magazine? You actually have people paid to write and edit this stuff?


 Bonus update for fun:  Paul Wells on a story in the Globe and Mail.  

Marlene Jennings is in a class by herself. Video.

Marlene Jennings, Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine, was busy playing cheap political games (the kind that the Liberals say they detest so much) yesterday in the House of Commons and let Canadians get another glimpse of this MP at work.


Watch the video:

Read it in Hansard.

Stay Classy Marlene. You are a true treasure for Canadian politics and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Lots more from Jennings here.

Remember.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month an armistice was signed to end the war to end all wars. 

Lt Col John McCrae:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.



Remember.

Why my MLA makes me proud.

Carl Benito PC MLA for Edmonton-Millwoods.

"When Benito was cornered by reporters to explain why he had not paid municipal taxes owed this year on four rental properties he owns, he stopped, looked the journalists in the eye -- and blamed his wife."


"Ever since then, he's been trying to muddy the issue by blaming reporters for allegedly misquoting him in the 2008 campaign. We didn't. (For the record, here's Benito again in his own campaign literature: "Carl Benito will donate his MLA salary for scholarships to young people in Mill Woods.") "

Just a couple of excerpts from the Calgary Herald.  Full story here.

The City of Edmonton's new anti racism campaign

Words almost fail me on this.  Found on the City of Edmonton website ( http://www.racismfreeedmonton.ca/what-can-you-do-to-stop-racism.asp )

"What can you do to stop racism?

Acknowledge your white privilege.

White privilege refers to all the benefits we get just for being white. Most of us are aware of how racism hurts others, but we're not aware of how it benefits us


...Racial "whiteness" is many things, but one of its consistent qualities is power. As people granted unearned privileges by our own whiteness, and as people who have likely harmed non-white people with our own whiteness, it's our moral and ethical duty to find ways to combat racism.
Racism is real. Denying that racism exists perpetuates racism."


Seriously? This smells like a AHRC complaint ripe for the taking and worse yet my tax dollars pay for this nonsense.

If you are having problems seeing what is wrong with the linked page, try substituting another skin colour/group/ethnicity in place of the word 'white' and ask yourself if it would have ever made the cut for posting on a city website.

Singling out anyone on the basis of the colour of their skin and then attributing qualities to everyone in that same group is not only stupid, it is quite simply racist.

There can be no other word for it.

Updates:  Read the comments for plenty of updates and feel free to drop off a comment yourself.  

The BHP potash decision: Ignatieff clueless on the law.

As most of you are now aware the decision on the BHP Billiton hostile takeover bid for Potash Corp of Saskatchewan came down today and as per usual, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was quick to jump in front of the PPG cameras to give us his take on things. His take on things though was just a little bit different than what one might expect from someone who is trying to become this country's PM because Ignatieff had no clue as to what he was talking about.

And what did Ignatieff get so wrong?    Watch the video and see for yourself.

You see, under Canadian Law, when a decision like this is taken by the government, the party that they ruled against has 30 days to modify its bid/offer etc before the government can legally make a final decision on the matter. To not comply, as Ignatieff wants to do, would open the government up to a huge lawsuit (remember it was a 40 Billion dollar deal) that this country does not need to fight.


That is the law, there is no way around it and Michael Ignatieff had absolutely no clue at all on the matter and reminds us all once again why he is not suitable to be the leader of this country.


Ignatieff, having been out of the country for over 30 years or not having ever served in cabinet might have an excuse, but Ralph Goodale was in cabinet and all he could do today while Ignatieff was making a fool of himself with his lack of knowledge on the subject in front of the TV cameras was stare at his leader like a lost puppy.  What a team.