alpha mike fox: Election

Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts

Herman Cain’s campaign overshadowed by allegations of impropriety

Herman Cain, Republican presidential candidate and former businessman, CEO and radio show host, is facing yet another charge of impropriety, this time from an Atlanta businesswoman who claimed she had a 13-year affair with the former pizza company chief executive. The woman, Ginger White, said that she had been aware at the time Mr. Cain was married and that their relationship was “inappropriate.”

Ms. White said Mr. Cain ended sexual relations with her eight months ago, when he began his run for the Republican nomination.

According to reports, Ms. White produced mobile phone bills showing what she said was Cain’s number. She said he had called her dozens of times over a period of several months. According to her, she decided to go public with her allegations after receiving calls from journalists, and she was bothered by the way Mr. Cain had “demonised” other women who had accused him of sexual harassment.

This surely must end what has been, until lately, an entertaining political campaign. According to Robert Costa at the National Review, “Herman Cain told his senior staff that he is ‘reassessing’ whether to remain in the race. He will make his final decision ‘over the next several days’.”

Mr. Cain is reported to have denied the “charges unequivocally.” He said, he had known “this lady” for “a number of years.” And that he’d “been attempting to help her financially because she was out of work and destitute, desperate.”

I believe, sadly, this candidate’s time in the sun is at an end. Even in these everything-goes days, marriage fidelity is expected, demanded, of a man who aspires to be the president.

Ontario PCs choosing new president: take a hard look at Richard Ciano

One of the highlights of my attendance at this past Saturday morning’s Burlington PC Riding Association’s annual general meeting was meeting one of the candidates to be the Ontario PC party’s next president, namely Richard Ciano. I had the good luck to sit beside Mr. Ciano during the brunch preceding the meeting and exchanged a few words.

It is said often that at crucial times in history, the “right” person seems to emerge. Well, Mr. Ciano’s emergence as a candidate to lead our party at a crucial time may well be one of those.

The brief speech Richard Ciano made at the AGM resonated with me—music to my ears, one might say. As I listened to him I mentally ticked-off each of my pet peeves over what I consider shortcomings/mistakes in the PC’s last general election campaign that had the unhappy consequence of Liberal Dalton McGuinty returning for his third term as premier of Ontario.

For the first time in years (probably since the early days of Mike Harris’s leadership) I heard a PC party insider “preach” the sort of things I’ve advocated as success factors for our party. Here’s a highly summarized list of the points highlighted by Mr. Ciano:

returning to open, fair and locally controlled candidate nominations;
restoring a grassroots policy development process to the party; and
re-establishing the principle of local control of local campaigns giving flexibility to local ridings to customize campaign literature, etc., based on local issues and circumstances.

It’s early days yet in the campaign for party president, but Mr. Ciano is saying all the right things, at least, as far as this writer is concerned.

GOP debate: no leader emerges to challenge Mitt

The Republican candidates’ debate hosted by CNN, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute Tuesday night was all about foreign policy and national security, and what each of the eight GOP nomination candidates would do differently should he/she win the White House. I thought CNN’s anchor Wolf Blitzer did a good job of keeping candidates on topic and of allowing all to have their say.

I noticed three flubs of a minor nature. The only one that seemed to get any notice was Herman Cain calling Wolf Blitzer, “Blitz” instead of “Wolf”. Two others, though, were interesting from a Canadian point of view.

First there was Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator, calling Africa a “country.” A minor slip perhaps, but it speaks volumes about how American politicians see the world. Also seemingly unnoticed was Rep. Michele Bachmann’s reference to the United States achieving “oil independence” if the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline had been allowed to proceed. Keystone XL is being built be a Canadian firm to transport Canadian-sourced oil. How can that contribute to the U.S.’s “oil independence?” But I quibble.

Jon Huntsman, former Utah governor and former ambassador to China, seemed in his element in this debate that focused heavily on foreign policy. His performance was the best of the night, followed closely by Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. By contrast, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and businessman Herman Cain did not impress.

Newt Gingrich showed political courage by sensibly calling for a limited amnesty for long-time illegal immigrants. Amnesty, of course, is not at all popular with many in the Republican base. The former House Speaker said:

I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter century. And I am prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship, but finding a way to give them legality so as not to separate them from their families.

This was one of the few times I have seen glimpses of statesmanship in this crop of presidential hopefuls.

Jon Huntsman also showed us he has the making of a statesman, at least, when it comes to foreign affairs. He’s arguing for drastic cuts in U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, even though it may be contrary to the advice of military advisers. His assessment of the Afghan scene seems the most dogma-free and realistic. He called for “an honest conversation in this [U.S.] country about the sacrifices that have been made over nearly 10 years.” He explained:

We need a presence on the ground that is more akin to 10,000 or 15,000. That will serve our interests in terms of intelligence gathering and special forces response capability. And we need to prepare for a world, not just in South Asia, but, indeed, in every corner of the world in which counter-terrorism is going to be in front of us for as far as the eye can see into the 21st century.

Michele Bachmann was at her best with perhaps the sagest advice of the night when she warned about the instability of Pakistan’s nuclear sites:

They also are one of the most violent, unstable nations that there is. We have to recognize that 15 of the sites, nuclear sites are available or are potentially penetrable by jihadists. Pakistan is a nation, that it’s kind of like ‘too nuclear to fail.’

“Too nuclear to fail,” I like that line a lot. But slogans, regardless of how true they are, are not of themselves, statesmanship. This was probably Bachmann’s best debate in quite awhile, but I’m far from being sold on her ending up in the White House.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum did well enough, I guess, but I just can’t see him in the role of the leader of the free world—not sufficient gravitas.

I agree with Michele Bachmann, who said Rick Perry’s position on the more than $1-billion U.S. aid sent to Pakistan is “highly naïve.” She disagrees with the Texas governor who sees aid to Pakistan as a blank cheque without any return on the U.S.’s investment. Perry is far too parochial for my liking. His jingoism—he wants the U.S. to consider unilaterally applying a no-fly zone over Syria (an overt act of war), for example—may excite the very right of the Republican base, but lacks depth and nuance. I like to see a more sophisticated approach to foreign policy from a presidential candidate.

Businessman and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain missed a golden opportunity to show he had the necessary grasp on foreign affairs. He sounded like he was reading from seminar notes when he chose phrases like, “number one, secure the border for real” and “I would first make sure that they had a credible plan for success, clarity of mission and clarity of success.” His answers sounded pedantic rather than astute.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has his supporters and likely did not disappoint them. His appeal to a broader segment of the American public probably took a hit, though, when he called humanitarian aid to fight disease in Africa “worthless.” I know his comment was prompted by a belief widely shared that foreign aid money gets syphoned off by foreign despots before it reaches the people who need it. There are countless examples, however, of aid to prevent disease being effective—saving millions of lives. Certainly foreign aid should be more effective—there’s plenty of room for improvement there—but it’s hardly worthless.

So there you have the candidates not named “Mitt.”

As to Mitt Romney himself, I thought he had a mediocre performance. But this man has been running for president for five years and he has learned a great deal. None did a better job of turning questions about foreign policy into answers about domestic issues. And Romney shows best when his positions are matched against those of President Obama. For that reason alone, the former governor of Massachusetts held his own.

So, the GOP race continues to be between Mitt Romney and the best of the rest.

© Russell G. Campbell, 2011.
All rights reserved.

The views I express on this blog are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of political parties, institutions or organizations with which I am associated.

Politico Playback …smile

Hudak ready to pull plug on McGuinty’s government?

Ontario’s Liberal minority Parliament is hardly settled in and already Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak is threatening to pull the plug on them. Apparently, Dalton McGuinty “shot down” Mr. Hudak’s ideas for a public-sector wage freeze and a reformed apprenticeship system, and this triggered the threat and a fundraising letter to PC supporters calling for support.

From where I sit, this looks too much like an empty threat intended only to fire up the PC base and, perhaps, collect a few bucks for the party coffers. Unfortunately, it will take more than good ideas and brave words to defeat the Grits. On what topic and on what timing would there be a meeting of minds between the PCs and Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats?

If there is such an issue, it’ll have to be a bigger one than the charging of HST on home heating bills. Any such vote is not likely to be one of confidence in the government, so win or lose the Grits will remain in power.

And, frankly, I don’t see the Grits putting anything in their next couple of annual budgets that will give the opposition something to rally round and vote the Liberals down.

Furthermore, can any of the three parties really afford another election in the next 24 months or so? Surely they need at least that much time to build up their war chests. Though the thought of listening to these guys huffing and puffing at one another for the next two years is a dismal one.

My advice would be to sheathe sabres and dispense with the empty threats. Take the fight to the committee rooms at Queen’s Park, there to influence Liberal legislation as best as can be done.

Liberals will be in a bind:

On one hand they have to rein in spending or see the budget deficit grow out of control. That’ll be hard to sell in the next election. On the other hand, spending restraint will be tough for public sector unions to swallow and that might dampen their support for the Grits in a future return to the polls.

The Queen’s Park Liberals are a spent force; in 18 months, they’ll be wanting to do almost anything to stay in office. At that point, they’ll likely turn first to the Dippers for help, and the resulting compromise legislation will sink them in the next election—probably Oct. 2015.

Tories don’t quite beat the in-and-out rap

The Conservative Party’s dispute with Elections Canada over what has been dubbed the “In and out scandal” has been settled with the Conservatives paying a $50,000 fine and admitting to technical breaches of election spending rules. And charges against Conservative Senators Irving Gerstein and Doug Finley, and party officers Mike Donison and Susan Kehoe of wilfully violating party spending limits have been dropped.

So much for, a “scandal” that at least one Liberal blogger promised would be:

…a story of massive proportion. If it should turn out that they did break the Canada Elections Act, it would be, by far, the largest political scandal in Canadian history. … if the allegations are proven, it could result in the deregistration of the Conservative Party of Canada and the liquidation of its assets.

Once again, we see Liberal hyperbole for what it is: partisan hokum with more fizzle than sizzle.

The Tory election spending scheme was discussed by a panel on Sunday’s Question Period on the CTV network. Neither of the co-hosts, Craig Oliver nor Kevin Newman had the good graces or journalistic objectivity to remind viewers that the issue was a technical breach of election law rather than a “scandal.” After all, the Conservative Party’s position was upheld in an earlier court decision suggesting that Elections Canada had overstepped its mandate, a ruling that was later overturned on appeal. So the issue was never as clear cut as many in the media or the opposition would have us believe.

In fact, it is quite well known that opposition parties have in the past successfully used similar interpretations of election law. And it’s disingenuous of their spokespersons to pretend otherwise, to say nothing of what is says about Question Period’s co-hosts, Craig Oliver and Kevin Newman. Near the end of their discussion of the “scandal”—after spending several minutes trashing the Conservative Party—Kevin Newman did mention that Robin Sears, senior partner with the PR, lobbying and public opinion research firm Navigator Ltd. and former NDP national campaign director, had said on CTV’s Power Play (link here to see Sears at about the 3:30 mark) that other parties had been doing this sort of thing all along.

In a March 2008 report, The Hill Times quoted Mr. Sears as follows:

I piss off all my Liberal and NDP friends when I say this but you know, I’m sorry guys this is a little bit like a piano player in a brothel saying, ‘I had no idea what was going on upstairs.’ As early as the late 1970s, early 1980s when I was involved, we would regularly move money from ridings that were close to their limit and had more money that [sic] they needed and were willing to be helpful in return for whatever kind of political kudos, to ridings where we thought we had prospects in and had less money, or money from the centre to poorer ridings, or money from richer ridings to the centre. All the parties have done that since the Elections Expenses Act was created and probably going back to Sir John A. Macdonald.

I do not think that Elections Canada has been even-handed in its handling of this case. Consider the media frenzy when they had the RCMP assist them in a raid of Tory party offices in April 2008, with TV cameras, reporters and opposition party members looking on. Apparently, Elections Canada decided to make an example and they have succeeded.

This stands in sharp contrast to the leeway Elections Canada has allowed to the 2006 Liberal leadership candidates (from the convention that elected Stéphane Dion) who had outstanding campaign loans for years after they received them. Their deadline was extended last year to the end of 2011, some five years and three new Liberal Party leaders since they incurred the loans for their campaigns.

The really bad news here is at the expense of the hapless Liberal Party whose spokespersons tried valiantly to make a big deal of this issue. Its Interim Leader Bob Rae finds himself in charge of what is still the reigning champion of Canadian political party corruption: remember the Sponsorship Scandal?

The in-and-out practice falls in a grey zone of elections law and can be confusing—obviously, it “confused” the court that originally found in favour of the Tories. I’m glad to see it resolved and the loophole closed.

Is there’s a rat in the House?

MPP Klees | PHOTO COURTESY OF FRANK-KLEES.ON.CA

Frank Klees, a veteran Progressive Conservative MPP, broke ranks with his party saying he’ll run for speaker of the Ontario Legislature. Should Mr. Klees be victorious, the ruling Liberals with 53 seats would be tied with the Tories and New Democrats who hold a combined 53 seats, excluding that of the speaker who does not vote except in ties.

This is a major blow to PC Leader Tim Hudak, who, along with NDP leader Andrea Howath, have reportedly said that no one from their party would run for speaker so as not to prevent them from defeating the McGuinty government, should such an opportunity present itself. Mr. Klees’s decision to run for speaker puts the opposition’s strategy in jeopardy because the speaker traditionally votes with the government and Premier Dalton McGuinty could keep power until the 2015 election.

So does this imply that Frank Klees is a turncoat?

I always thought he was a party-first kind of a guy, but perhaps the lure of the prestigious post as “Presiding Officer of the House” with a comfortable $152,914-a-year pay cheque, a suite of offices and a private apartment at Queen’s Park was too much for him to pass up.

Mr. Klees denied Tuesday there was an agreement among his fellow MPPs to stay out of the race—“I wasn’t privy to that caucus,” he said—but he seems to stand alone on that one. According to a report in today’s National Post newspaper, Mr. Hudak said on Tuesday:

We’re surprised and disappointed that Frank has decided that this is a better approach for him in the assembly. Frank’s made a decision. And Frank is Frank. We did our best as a team to encourage Frank to take on a couple of key critic portfolios, but Frank felt that his energies were best directed elsewhere.

It also seems disingenuous of Mr. Klees to deny that his victory would hand the Liberals a de facto majority. Scott Stinson quotes Mr. Klees in his Full Comment blog as telling reporters on Tuesday:

While convention is that [the Speaker] would cast the vote with the government, that’s not a rule—the speaker always has the prerogative to cast a vote based on what he or she believes is the right thing to do, and I’ll conduct myself accordingly.

Who is he trying to kid? I’d give his remark more credence if he’d provided a single example of a speaker in a parliament following the Westminster tradition ever voting against a government in a confidence vote. In other words, When has a speaker ever cast a vote that led directly to the defeat of a government? I don’t believe one ever has.

Being more candid, Mr. Klees also said that after 16 years at Queen’s Park, he is simply looking to stay interested. Perhaps he would have better served his constituents of Newmarket-Aurora had he owned up to his boredom earlier and retired from Queen’s Park before the October election.

Given the present circumstances at Queen’s Park, I believe Mr. Klees has done the equivalent of “crossing the floor,” that is, he’s a “rat” and Tim Hudak should turf him from the Tory caucus.

Will Obama’s declaration that America’s war in Iraq will end in 2011 help his re-election prospects?

During his run for president of the United States, Barack Obama pledged “to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.” Friday, the president confirmed his promise with an announcement that he will pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of this year. This fulfills one of the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement (SFA) with Iraq.

Over 4,400 American military lives have been lost since the Iraq war started in 2003, and the war has already cost the Americans over $806-billion.

According to the Huffington Post, there were reports the administration was looking for ways to renegotiate the SFA with the Iraqi government so as to prolong U.S. presence in that country. Such reports were troubling to many who had supported the Democrats in 2008—at least in part—because of Obama’s pledge to end the war.

Apparently, Americans and the Iraqis wanted to keep up to about 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline, despite their public protestations to the contrary. Negotiations were prompted by: (a) the Iraqis’ hope for more help in providing internal stability; and (b) the Americans’ fear of further encroachment by Iran. But the Iraq government faced opposition to the idea from Shia groups and Iraqi nationalists, and discussions over the precise number of and legal immunity for troops that would stay behind were stumbling blocks in the negotiations.

Of the 41,000 troops the Americans now have stationed in Iraq, only 4,000 to 5,000 security contractors will remain in the country after Dec. 31. This would end an occupation that, at its height in 2006, saw some 170,000 U.S. soldiers in that country.

The cost in American lives and treasure has been high, with over 4,400 American military lives having been lost since the war started in March, 2003 when U.S. President George W. Bush launched the U.S.’s “Shock And Awe” invasion of Iraq. More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have also been killed. And, according to a study by Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget, released last March, the war had already cost the Americans $806-billion.

Many pundits are convinced President Obama would not have been elected president had it not been for the Iraq War. His victory in the presidential primary elections was owed in no small part to support from his party’s antiwar wing—Hillary Clinton had become tainted by her vote for the invasion and he campaigned to bring the troops home. Now the debate will be over whether the president’s announcement will help him in next year’s election.

The Iraq promise kept and recent foreign policy victories—bin Laden’s and Gaddafi’s deaths—will no doubt play a role in the 2012 election; however, with the American economy in such poor shape and without much hope it will improve over the next 12 months, voters are likely to remember Bill Clinton’s now famous phrase, “It’s the economy stupid,” which seemed to resonate so well with them during his successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H. W. Bush.

I agree with Glen Bolger—a Republican pollster whose firm is working for former governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign—who said, “The election is much more about Americans losing their jobs than about Gaddafi losing his head.” And I’d say much the same about the president’s latest Iraq announcement.

McKenna wins her spurs

The following is a re-print of my weekly column at Our Burlington online newspaper.

The philosopher-lawyer Joseph de Maistres famously said, “Every country has the government it deserves.” And so, I might add, does every Canadian province. Maistre’s words were on my mind when I went to bed early this [Friday] morning while contemplating Jane McKenna’s and Ted Chudleigh’s victories for the Progressive Conservatives here in Burlington, which helped the opposition parties keep the Liberals from a three-peat majority.

I’m in Jane McKenna’s Burlington riding and that was the race I keyed on throughout the weeks leading up to Oct.6. McKenna won handily taking the riding with about 40% of the ballots cast. Liberal candidate Karmel Sakran got a respectable 36% and NDP Peggy Russell received almost 19% of the votes.

Given Burlington’s voting history over the past several decades, the election was McKenna’s to lose, and the Liberals certainly seemed to believe they had a candidate with the stuff to spoil the Tory record. Unfortunately for the Grits, their candidate ran a lackluster campaign. I still shudder as I recall the image of Karmel Sakran slavishly reading verbatim—head-down and droning on in a monotone—from his briefing notes as he answered questions at the recent Chambers of Commerce all-candidate session. If Sakran expressed an original thought the entire morning, I missed it. Peggy Russell, though, ran an excellent campaign, keying in on local issues and emphasizing her political experience. But Burling is not a riding to give an NDP candidate much of a look.

From where I stood, Jane McKenna spent a good deal of her time knocking on doors trying to meet as many voters as she could, even at the expense of attending group meetings where the media would see more of her. Her strategy worked: she didn’t play to the media, she played to the voters—and she won.

Progressives have asked this question in various forms: How has voting Tory helped Burlington? PCs like me respond with: How has a Liberal government at Queen’s Park helped Burlington—before the recent election goodies were tossed our way?

Progressives may also want to ask the residents of nearby Caledonia just how much Burlingtonians should depend on Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal party. And how about this quote from the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2008:

“At too many hospitals, infection control is given about as much attention as ‘a lump of sod on the front lawn,’ complains a frustrated infection control specialist.

“Dr. Michael Gardam has investigated Clostridium difficile outbreaks that led to deaths at 4 Ontario hospitals, including the recent highly publicized case of 62 patient deaths at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, Ontario.”

That was on the Liberals’ watch, and during the term their candidate served on the hospital’s board.

If the current seat-count holds and the Liberals are denied a majority, they’ll have to put a bit of water in their wine and that will have to do for now. Burlington won last night, for the election campaign forced the Liberals to finally give our hospital much needed funding for its expansion—something no other Liberal government has ever done, and they’ve been in power for about 13 of the past 26 years and all of the last eight. It also forced the Liberals to abandon their plan to pave over a significant portion of our escarpment.

And I am pleased that, in Jane McKenna, we will have an energetic, quick-learner representing us at Queen’s Park—someone who has shrugged off a past failure at the polls and shown she can win when it really counts. She’ll be there to hold Grit toes to the fire.

I offer my thanks to all candidates for running, and wish Jane all the best as she embarks on her term in the legislature.

Tweet Follow @Cycroft

McGuinty gets the hat-trick

Dalton McGuinty, Andrea Horwath and Tim Hudak at their Sep. 27, 2011 televised debate.

| Peter J. Thompson/National Post

The fat lady sang loud and clear, but she wasn’t singing a tune to which the Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak would care to tap his toe. Current and future Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, won a strong minority, missing the big prize by a single seat—doesn’t get closer than that. Here’s the preliminary results compared to my predictions:

	LIB	PC	NDP	GREEN
Vote	37.6%	35.4%	22.7%	2.9%
My prediction	39%	34%	21%	3%

Looks like I got lucky with my guesses and came within a reasonable margin of error. As I wrote when I made them, I had felt the Liberals were surging above 41% in support—strong majority territory—and the NDP were moving into the mid-twenties. This would have left Tim Hudak’s PCs about where they finished under John Tory’s leadership, 31%.

By election day, however, I was sensing some pull-back from the brink on the part of some right-leaning Liberals (yes such a species does exist), denying Dalton McGuinty his three-peat majority.

Only a little over 2 points separate the Grits from the Tories in percentage of votes cast—enough to make me wonder how the Progressive Conservative campaign might have turned out had we not been weighed down by Hudak’s reference to immigrants as “foreigners”, and had more of a what-I’ll-do-for-you emphasis and less don’t-vote-for-the-taxman negativism.

Back in July-August, polls were suggesting Tim Hudak held an 11-point lead and could win a majority. McGuinty and his experienced team, though, showed the rookie PC leader a trick or too about running an effective political campaign. The PCs’ backroom guys and gals took one on the chin. Let’s hope they’ll lose some of their centric I-know-best arrogance in time for the next campaign. We have 107 local ridings, and we need to harness more of their knowledge of local issues, their energy and resourcefulness—and, yes, their election expertise.

Both Hudak and Horwath won their home ridings handily and improved their parties’ seat-counts enough to earn those leaders another shot in four years or so. I predict that whichever of the pair build the strongest grassroots organization from the riding level on up, will win when next we go to the polls. McGuinty was mauled (lost 17 seats) yesterday, next time he’ll be ripe for the knock-out punch.

Too early for a final tally, of course, but early statistics suggest this election had one of lowest turnouts—perhaps the lowest ever. Ontario has roughly 8.5-million eligible voters, of whom only about 4.1-million (48%) seemed to have cast a ballot. This is especially disappointing considering the increased advanced polling and the fine weather we enjoyed on voting day. Ontario citizens seem far more concerned with rights and than with obligations. But I digress.

A big shout-out to all the candidates across the province who put their lives and families on hold so they could help lead us in this precious opportunity to engage in democracy. Thank you all.

Tweet Follow @Cycroft

Ontario election: my guess on how they’ll finish tonight

My general sense of the just-concluded Ontario election campaign is that the race got tighter at the end and that Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals will barely eke out a majority or finish with a big minority, easily kept in power by Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats—at the urging of the powerful public service unions, her real masters—for, at least, 30 months and maybe for the full four-year term.

Recently, I felt the Liberals were surging above 41% in support—strong majority territory—and the NDP were moving into the mid-twenties. This would have left Tim Hudak’s PCs about where they finished under John Tory’s leadership, 31%. But today I’m more optimistic about the PCs’ chances and less bullish about both the Grits and the Dippers.

A lot depends on the vote-split between the right of the NDP (is there such a thing?) and the left of the Liberals, of course, and whether these splits come in ridings in which the PCs have a chance of benefitting from a strong NDP showing. My guess is the Tories will benefit somewhat, but not enough to upset the Grits—just enough to put a bit of a spoiler on their victory celebration.

So, with crystal ball firmly clutched in both hands, I offer this prediction for tonight:

Liberals at around 39%, Progressive Conservative around 34%, NDP at about 21% (maybe a tad higher) and the Greens at around 3% of the vote. I also predict a fairly low voter-turnout, somewhat less that 55% of eligible voters.

I’m terrible at seat projections—too many variables—but, just for fun, I’ll put some numbers up so you can tell me how wrong I was: Liberals: 53–56, PCs: 30–35 NDP: 18–22 seats.

There’s room for a long-shot minority victory by Hudak, but even so, since I can’t see either the NDP or the Liberals allowing him to form a government, it really will be McGuinty’s night one way or another.

Name-calling as a substitute for open debate?

The phenomenon of using name-calling as a tactic to silence debate is alive and flourishing in this Ontario campaign. Homophobia seems to be the slur of the day: the Grits are slamming the Tories because of “Hudak’s homophobic flyers” (pictured) that the Grits claim falsely accuse Dalton McGuinty of “keeping parents in the dark” about the province’s sex-ed school curriculum.

According to this CTV report: “The Toronto District School Board has developed a 219-page curriculum resource guide for kindergarten through Grade 12 called ‘Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism’.”

The report claims the resource guide “recommends schools not advise parents when teachers will be introducing concepts such as gender discrimination and non-traditional families in the classroom.”

About 17 months ago, Dalton McGuinty had to back off from a controversial sex education curriculum planned for our grade schools, because of outrage from parents. At the time, he seemed to be caught by surprise by the new curriculum, and within hours of his education minister defending it in the provincial legislature, he told reporters the sex-ed program was halted.

Curious that in 2010 he wasn’t calling parents who were outraged by the sex-ed plan “homophobic”. Back then, he said:

“…it’s very important that as a government …we listen very carefully to what parents have to say and we take their concerns into account and lend shape to a curriculum that they are comfortable with.”

Apparently, the education ministry did not heed McGuinty’s words for nothing much has changed in the past year as far as the content and tone of proposed sex education is concerned, at least, not in our provincial capital, Toronto. And when the PC party publishes a flyer demonstrating that party stands on the side of parents, the Liberal war room slurs Tim Hudak as being homophobic.

That’s it isn’t it? In the eyes of the progressives, one can never criticize a pro-gay, lesbian, etc., agenda without being homophobic. We must all genuflect before the alter of Gay Pride or risk being accused as having an irrational fear of homosexuality and homosexuals, being labeled a bigot, and suffering other unattractive and insulting consequences.

Dirty tricks dreamed up in the smoky backrooms of the political bosses are nothing new, of course, but they remain as cynical as they always were and have a corrosive effect on our democracy. Playing clean is anathema to any Grit party machine. To expect otherwise is like expecting scorpions to stop stinging—its part of their innate nature.

Tweet Follow @Cycroft

Will vote-splitting and getting out the Tory vote be enough to save Hudak?

The Dalton McGuinty Liberals seem poised to “three-peat” in tomorrow’s election. Some polls show them in majority territory and none have the Progressive Conservatives in the lead. PC leader Tim Hudak needs something akin to a miracle to put him in office.

Some PC supporters take solace from the fact Tories have an excellent record of delivering their votes on election day. And, of course, the strong New Democrat showing is likely to split-off some Liberal voters. But will those factors be enough to give the PCs a last-minute reprieve? I fear they will be too little too late.

The shame of it is the PCs once held a comfortable 11-point lead on Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals, but a new Ipsos poll reported in the National Post today suggests McGuinty—with 41% support from voters—will win his third majority in a row. Not only is McGuinty’s party leading, but it is pulling away and now finds itself in majority territory.

Mr. Hudak’s PCs trail by 10 points at 31% and Andrea Horwath’s New Democratic Party is in third place with 25% support.

Should the trend suggested by this poll hold through the next 36 hours, the collapse of the Hudak campaign will virtually duplicate the sorry effort of John Tory’s 2007 team, when that brain-trust managed only 31.6% of the popular vote—about where the Tories are one day before this election.

For those interested in the technicalities of the survey: the poll of 1,020 adults for The Ottawa Citizen was conducted Sept. 30–Oct. 3 and has a margin of error of 3.1%.

Tweet Follow @Cycroft

In Burlington the PCs offer the best choice on Oct. 6

Those of us living in Ontario get a chance to exercise our franchise in the provincial general election on Thursday, Oct. 6. By all accounts, the race is between Dalton McGuinty’s ruling Liberals and Progressive Conservatives led by Tim Hudak, assuming no late “orange crush” from the rejuvenated New Democrats and their popular leader, Andrea Horwath.

My local riding, Burlington, has an interesting race underway. After the retirement of incumbent PC Joyce Savoline, the seat has opened up and could be lost to the PCs for the first time since 1943. The race here is mainly between local businesswoman Jane McKenna running as the PC candidate and Liberal candidate Karmel Sakran a lawyer, though, with vote-splitting, the New Democrat Peggy Russell could be a dark horse set for a run up the middle.

One local pundit asks, “Will you vote for the party or the person?” And suggests, “If you decide at this point that you will vote for the party no matter what—well then you’re some kind of an idiot or at best an irresponsible citizen.”

I agree with him, but only to a point. For my money, when there is no clear-cut “best person” running in a riding, and the other party has made a cock up of the economy over its eight-year term, wouldn’t one have to be our pundit’s “idiot or at best an irresponsible citizen” if one voted for a particular candidate just because she/he was not running for the Progressive Conservative Party? Well, perhaps not an idiot, but I think you get my point.

For many in Ontario, this election is an anybody-but-the-PCs campaign. This is clearly the case with the teachers’ unions and with the various powerful, rich public sector unions and other diehard leftists. And, with due respect, I believe it’s the point of view of the pundit I quoted above.

So I ask myself, why not vote PC in Burlington?

The PC party’s candidates have held the Burlington riding in its various configurations since the 1943, and during that time the town, later the city, has grown and prospered. Since the mid-eighties (a 26-year span), the PCs have only been in government for about eight years, so local candidates were handicapped in obtaining funding and other benefits for the city.

There are two main election issues in Burlington: a new highway the Liberal government was considering that would have cut across the city’s section of the Niagara Escarpment; and provincial funding for the expansion of Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital (JBMH).

As to the highway: all parties agree it will not be built across Burlington’s escarpment. The anybody-but-the-PCs crowd would have us believe otherwise, but both the local PC candidate and PC leader Tim Hudak have made their position clear on this file.

So we can safely vote PC on this one.

As to funding for the hospital. The hospital desperately needs to expand, but lacks the funds. Apparently, one floor is closed because it also lacks funds to keep it open. So who do we blame?

Do we blame the incumbent MPP who is in opposition? Or is the fault with the Liberal government that has been in office for about half of the last 26 years, and all of the past eight years? It is the Grit politicians who hold the purse strings, not the bureaucrats. No number of telephone calls and badgering of bureaucrats by an opposition MPP will get you anything unless their Liberal political masters give their OK. And apparently Burlington and our hospital wasn’t one of their priorities.

By the way, JBMH opened in 1961 (under a PC government) and doubled in size in 1971 (under a PC government). It made internal renovations in 1993 (under an NDP government) and a minor expansion occurred and 2001 (under a PC government). Where were the Liberals? For Burlington’s hospital, they’ve always been missing in action.

And, by the way, where were the Liberals when a 20-month-long outbreak of C. difficile led to 62 deaths at JBMH in 2006–07. Our pundit says, “The hospital got so run down and so difficult to keep clean that it had a serious C.difficile outbreak that resulted in the loss of more than 90 lives. That kind of funding failure in any community is criminal.”

Let’s be absolutely clear: cleaning standards, or lack thereof, led to the C.difficile crisis at JBMH. A responsible CEO and board would have closed the facility if the governing Liberals were not giving them enough funds to keep the place clean. What sort of people would have risked our lives like that? People died under a Liberal government watch, and, with respect, trying to blame an opposition party MPP for not “deliver[ing] for the community” just doesn’t cut it on this file.

But I do agree, “That kind of funding failure in any community is criminal.” So why hasn’t someone from the Liberal government gone to jail?

So on this file too, I’ll vote PC and not the do-nothing-for-our-hospital Liberals.

In summary, PC candidate, Jane McKenna has given clear, unambiguous support for Burlington’s two major issues in this election, convincing me that (a) while the mid-peninsula highway is important to Ontario’s future economy, it will not be crossing Burlington’s section of the fragile Niagara Escarpment; and (b) Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital will receive provincial funding for its expansion project, should the PCs gain power.

By the way, for the Liberal candidate to keep insisting the PCs may not carry through with funding is morally reprehensible—after all, it’s a bit rich coming from the Liberals whose record for breaking election promises is second to none.

So I voted PC and hope you readers who live in the Burlington riding will do the same.

Burlington candidates faceoff

The following is a re-print of my column at Our Burlington online newspaper.

Candidates representing Ontario’s three main parties in the Oct. 6 election faced off last Tuesday at a question and answer event hosted by the Burlington Chamber of Commerce. The Q&A format gave little opportunity for the cut-and-thrust I enjoy in these all-candidate encounters; however, the event did provide an opportunity to see the politicians in action.

Considering that every response given was already available on the parties’ websites, I could just as well have stayed home and surfed the Internet. There was nothing new, nothing spontaneous, no insights gained. So I won’t give a detailed reportage—that’s already been done elsewhere in these pages. My objective was to take the measure of the candidates themselves and get a view of how well they think on their feet and how persuasive they are.

Anyone who attended expecting spirited debate left disappointed. The candidates mainly read from prepared notes, giving the impression these were not the well-prepared, self-confident, facts-at-their-fingertips sorts one might hope for, or even expect, from politicians seeking high office. Quite a contrast to the polished performances we saw later that day on the televised Leaders’ Debate. I place great emphasis on “form” at such events. After all, candidates have every reason to be well prepared and at their best, just as their leaders were—none of them read from briefing notes.

Is it too much to ask that candidates memorize their party platforms and related statistics? And, when questions are not specifically covered by party material, don’t we expect them to speak from their hearts? Furthermore, not answering the question asked and not answering in the allotted time may well be symptomatic of not properly preparing oneself and/or lacking personal discipline.

Liberal candidate Karmel Sakran was the least effective performer. Given his legal background, I expected more from him, and his audience deserved better. He spoke with his head down as he read in a monotone from prepared notes, as might a shy grade niner seeking the class presidency. And he so poorly planned the length of his opening remarks, he barely got the chance to tell us who he was and to give his connection to Burlington before running over his allotted time. Throughout the morning, he offered little eye-contact, no spark, no spontaneity. And he also ran over his allotted time before completing his closing statement.

Mr. Sakran did, however, introduce the main elements of his party’s platform and defended its record in government. He also showed he knows our community. Unfortunately, however, he read answers without enthusiasm and was unconvincing. When he had nothing specific in his briefing notes to cover a question, he seemed to select a phrase—like “health care”—and matched it to a general response from his notes, ignoring the question’s context. I only remember him answering two questions in an impromptu fashion, looking up at the audience and without reading from his papers. They related to an immigrant business tax credit, which he defended ably, and the relocation of a gas plant in Oakville. All candidates were, uncharacteristically for the morning, spontaneous and animated as they agreed that the gas plant should not relocate to Burlington.

Those already inclined to vote Liberal, are unlikely to have changed their minds because of this event. But, while he might not have harmed himself or his party, he missed an opportunity to shine and convince voters in attendance and watching on Cogeco Cable that he was ready and able to take over from the retiring incumbent MPP Joyce Savoline.

Conversely, New Democrat Peggy Russell made a lot of eye-contact and showed flashes of passion, although, she also depended too heavily on prepared text. At one point, she read the wrong prepared answer. And there were opinions she expressed that I found curious:

First, on the issue of education, she blamed former premier Mike Harris for the lost schooldays due to strikes. I don’t remember Mike Harris locking out the teachers as much as the teachers withholding their labour at the expense of students. But I quibble.

Secondly, Ms. Russell claimed small businesses will benefit from a higher minimum wage, because workers would have more to spend. Following her logic, businesses should all give massive across-the-board raises to their employees. How strange it is they haven’t cottoned on to this NDP strategy?

Ms. Russell also went overtime on several responses, but she seemed sincere and seemed to “own” her answers. In my view, she won the morning in that she was passionate, made eye-contact and showed a level of political maturity not as evident in her rivals.

I rated the PC candidate Jane McKenna’s performance somewhere between that of her rivals. Following the pattern of the morning, she referred too frequently to her briefing notes, but, at least, she was animated and made far more eye-contact with her audience than did Mr. Sakran. She also, for the most part, finished her statements and answers within the allotted times. And she gave the best closing statement of the three.

She sounded nervous at times, but her deliveries, even when read out, seemed to be her own opinions and beliefs. That is, she, like Peggy Russell, seemed to own her answers despite them being couched in party rhetoric.

Ms. McKenna gave clear, unambiguous responses, convincing me that (a) while the mid-peninsula highway is important to Ontario’s future economy, it would not be crossing Burlington’s section of the fragile Niagara Escarpment; and (b) Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital will receive provincial funding for its expansion project, should the PCs gain power. And, on a couple of occasions when she did not have an answer to a question, she said so without trying to retrofit her prepared text and offering it in place of a meaningful and specific answer.

So there you have it: an astonishingly amateurish affair with an NDP winner, a solid performance by the PC and a lackluster one by the Liberal.

Tweet Follow @Cycroft