Random Election Links

It's been a while since I've had a chance to post. Not much for me to say today, I was up until 4:00 and am trying to put my brain back together. Some links to keep you up to date in the land of the election...

NEWS:

1. Stephen Harper is Defending his patriotism again.
2. Andrew Cohen is calling Stephen pragmatic.
3. One of my favorite Liberal Candidates is defending himself from some pretty ugly accusations.
4. US Army running secret torture prisons.

Election Blogging:

1. CalgaryGrit's Week in Review.
2. Funniest site of the debate so far: Derision 2006.

One more thing. Last week someone dug up a speech Stephen Harper gave to a Secret American Political Organisation in 1997 in Montreal. I've posted a copy here. It isn't scary like everyone wants you to believe but it certainly doesn't paint a picture of someone I'd like to see as PM. (BTW, This is also the meeting where the plot to impeach clinton got hatched (Page 3))

Open-Source Blogging

This Election Summary is funny and witty and everything I aspire to be. So I've stolen it. I've copied it below and have added some fun and exciting links for context:

Now that I've finally figured out the technology, I'm ready for my first post on the CTV weblog. For those of you who have been out of the country (I'm looking at you Mr. Ignatieff), I've decided to give a quick little recap of the election campaign to date in dialogue form:

Steven Harper: "Canada is full of pottential"

Paul Martin: "You hate Canada!"

Steven Harper: "Our special prosecutor..."

Peter MacKay: "...is a terrible idea! And I'm not just saying that because I want Mr. Harper's job."

Michael Ignatieff: "So this is what Canada looks like...Anyone know where I can buy some electrodes and an Iron Maiden."

Gilles Duceppe: "Starting in goal for team Quebec...Martin Brodeur!"

Stephen Harper: "GST tax cut!"

Stephen Harper: "Daycare tax cut!"

Stephen Harper: "Student tax cut!"

Jack Layton: "Umm...if I could get a word in here..."

Stephen Harper: "Fishermen tax cut!"

Stephen Harper: "Small business tax cut!"

Paul Martin: "I promise to give 40 billion over 40 years for childcare"

Gilles Duceppe: "Must...crush...Liberals!"

Jean Lapierre: "Nazi! Nazi!"

Jack Layton: "Excuse me...I'd really like to get a chance to speak..."

Ralph Goodale: "Oh crap...this could be bad."

Trolling the Blogosphere; Links to another great blog

Since I'm from the interior and don't really have an opinion on hand guns I thought I'd like to a post from one of my favorite bloggers, CalgaryGrit (with whom I regularly disagree) here it is.

The NDP have also posted their first ad here.

My first thoughts are that I'm surprised given how nice the NDP are. They're just nice people. Some of them are nice people who are crazy but on the whole, nice folks. This is going to be the election where they find their inner Mr. Hyde.

I'm looking forward to watching Mr. Toronto get all uppity and start attacking the Liberals. Especially when he realises that the only effective attack will be for cooperating with the NDP agenda in such a principled way. Oh the irony. Mr. Layton has been spending to much time with Mr. Harper methinks.

If for some reason Canadians decide to give Mr. Harper an opportunity to govern a minority supported by the NDP (with the Bloc disinclined to ever topple the government), these two are going to find themselves in the political equivalent of purgatory. If it weren't so bad for the country I'd almost like to watch Mr. Layton and Mr. Harper fighting over their fair share of the blankets in their bed of convenience. Politics and strange bedfellows, that would be funny.

CalgaryGrit has also posted his thoughts, and since we agree, I'll post this link.

The 24-hour News Cycle; or Why "Rapid-Response" is a Bad Idea

Earlier this week I mentioned Stephen Harper's answer to the question: "Mr. Harper, Do you Love Canada?"

I mentioned for those of you interested in public office that the answer to this question always starts with the word "Yes". I also mentioned that the word "yes" doesn't appear anywhere in Mr. Harper's question.

Let me now ask this question. How is that within hours of Mr. Harper being asked this question a press release attacking his patriotism had been released and blogs across the country were commenting on it? How is that this even made it into the realm of being discussed? (I'm guilty too)

Answer: People are Lazy.

The fact is that the easiest thing to comment on is the thing everyone is commenting on. This is the same reason that newspapers love press releases and often don't bother editing them before they go to print. You see, if I give you a pre-packaged message then it is easy for you to run with it. In a world where the news cycle is 24-hours long and everybody needs something to print there isn't much time for thoughtful reporting. When the deadline is looming everyone writes about what someone has written about.

This is the reason for "rapid-response". The idea of a political campaign "rapid-response" team is to take advantage of the fact that many media products will let you do their work for them. This is the way it works: each campaign assigns some people to spend all of their time poring over everything anyone on the other team has said anywhere (this includes speeches, blogs, interviews, gorcery lists, and comments people make under their breath at cocktail parties) then when you find something that could be taken as offensive to anyone (even if it requires quoting out of context) you hastily call a press conference or issue a press release and hope that some journalist somewhere writes about the inane comment you unearthed from nowhere.

Take for example the following comment from an official Liberal Party blog (i've bolded the part relevant to our story):

People keep sayng this campaign is a carbon copy of the 2004 election. But that's not true. Stephen Harper has a right handsome new hairstyle. Paul Hellyer has grabbed hold of the campaign agenda, blowing the lid off the whole UFO invasion thing, the number one priority of Canadians who are socially awkward Omni subscribers. And we were all shocked to walk out tonight to discover that, unlike 2004, the PM's oversized face is not on the side of the side of our campaign bus.

Now this is where the conservative rapid-response team came in. Jason Kenney (and I imagine a number of his staff), were probably sitting in the "rapid-response work zone" and someone was reading this blog and probably yelled "Hey, what's Omni" someone else probably yelled back something to the effect "It's a multicultural TV network." At this point someone did the following political algebra on the back of a napkin:

• The Liberal party is widely supported by new Canadians and ethnic communities
  
• New Canadians and ethnic communities are the only people who watch the multicultural TV network OMNI
• The Liberal Party is describing new Canadians and ethnic communities as "socially awkward"
• We should call a press conference to make the media think that the Liberals hate immigrants and ethnic Canadians.

So that's what Jason Kenney did. No fact checking or google searches just a impromtu press conference for a very narrow accusation. The kind of thing that happens in the land of 24-hour news. Hear's what Jason Kenney said in his press conference:

"(Feschuk) said that Omni subscribers were socially awkward people who believe in UFOs. Scott's a funny guy, and I'm sure he'll say it was just a joke, but I think it's a joke in bad humour. What's he saying? That people from ethnic minorities who are the television viewers of Omni are paranoid, are abnormal, are ungrounded in reality? What's he saying?... I think he has to explain himself, and so does the prime minister."

This little bit in bold is the money shot of "rapid-response" politics. The problem is that it backfired. Anyone who googles "OMNI + Magazine" gets back some information about a now defunct Science Fiction Magazine that often discussed the likelihood of Alien Invastion. Ah if only Mr. Kenney or one of his staff had taken the time to get some facts before calling the press conference then he wouldn't have had the embarrasment of reading this the next day in the previously mentioned blog:

It wasn't a joke, Jason. I was being serious. Of course, I was referring to subscribers to Omni, the magazine for science buffs and those who believe they've visited Alpha Centuri, not viewers of Omni television. (The fact that I know of Omni mag and Jason doesn't may speak to the fact he had a more socially successfully youth than I did).

In the spirit of interstellar goodwill, I make this offer: if Jason apologizes, I'll send him a free subscription to Omni and a tin foil hat.

Even worse, he wouldn't have had to call another press conference to apologize and he wouldn't have had to read this article in the natioal post the next day, particularly this bit:

Mr. Feschuk did explain himself, pointing out the MP's mistake on his next blog posting and joking that he would soon make a reference to the popular band The Killers so the Conservatives could issue a "Paul Martin Supports Indiscriminant Homicide" news release...

Mr. Kenney apologized after learning of his mistake, and Mr. Feschuk said via e-mail that he was surprised his blog had become a campaign topic.

The moral of the story is that sometimes lazy is embarrassing.

An Election Joke

I got this joke e-mailed to me. I'm a big fan of the entrepreneurial spirit. It's just not good to take it quite this far.

A young man named Paul bought a donkey from an old farmer for $100.00. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day. When the farmer drove up the next day, he said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad news...the donkey is on my truck, but he's dead." Paul replied, "Well then, just give me my money back." The farmer said, "I Can't do that. I went and spent it already." Paul said, "OK then, just unload the donkey anyway". The farmer asked, "What are ya gonna do with him?"

Paul said, "I'm going to raffle him off." To which the farmer exclaimed, "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!" But Paul, with a big smile on his face, said, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody that he's dead." A month later the farmer met up with Paul and asked, "What happened with that dead donkey?" Paul said, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $698.00." Totally amazed, the farmer asked, "Didn't anyone complain that you had stolen their money because you lied about the donkey being dead?" And Paul replied, "The only guy who found out about the donkey being dead was the raffle winner, when he came to claim his prize. So I gave him his $2 back plus $200 extra, which is double the going value of a donkey, so he thought I was a great guy."

Women... (personally I'm in favor)

Earlier this week I read this article on women in Politics and got to thinking...

The House of Commons contains 308 seats and at its most recent dissolution a mere 65 of the people elected to fill them were women. In a country where more than half of its citizens are women, a mere 21% of our elected representatives are. In the senate (currently 101 members) we make a bit more progress. 36 senators (or 35.6%) are women. you can find the breakdowns by party here and the breakdowns by province here and here.

If we look at candidates in the last election we're in rough shape. considering only the parties that elected candidates we have the Liberals with 75 (of 308 candidates) the Conservatives with 36 (of 308 candidates) the NDP with 96 (of 308 candidates) and the Bloq with 18 (of 75 candidates).

Total women candidates: 225
Total Candidates:999
Percentage of Major Party Candidates who are women: 22%

Below, I've copied a table from the parliamentary website showing the success each party has had in getting candidates elected.

Party	Candidates	Elected	Percentage Elected
New Democratic Party	96	5	5.20 %
Liberal	75	34	45.33 %
Conservative Party of Canada	36	12	33.33 %
Marxist-Leninist Party	28	0	0 %
Bloc Québécois	18	14	77.77 %

A couple of reflections on these numbers....

It seems to me that given the fact that the proportion of women elected is roughly the same as the proportion of women nominated to run that the election process itself isn't to blame for the lack of women in the House.

The thing that fascinated me in this article is the idea that women are being asked to run but declining. I've been around the Liberal party for a few years and I've had more than one conversation about why there are so few women MPs. Usually I'm being told that the reason so few women are elected is because of the nomination process. By "the nomination process" the people I'm talking to usually mean the idea that local riding associations think that a married man with two kids and a career is the best kind of candidate.

This idea has never seemed far fetched to me. We by no means live in a society that has shrugged off its sexism, there is still a large wage gap between men and women and an even larger promotion gap (fewer women the higher you go up the corporate ladder). I've never had difficulty believing that this "elected gap" could have a similar cause. Then I started to hear stories about women who were turning down nominations or who were being asked to run for nominations and declining.

What if there is another reason. Politics is truly a bloodsport, it is about confrontation, opposition and often it is about winning not compromise. Even more than that, it is hard on families and it is difficult to maintain the social circles you once had. Politics is so far from the mundane ordered existence of average Canadians. On top of all those things, there is no privacy and even less stability. If politics is a sport, it is definately full-contact.

Is it possible that the real reason that so few women are in elected office in Canada is not that the rules are against them but that they are against the rules? It's a pretty narrow distinction to make but I think it's a legitimate one. I think the largest reason that more women aren't elected is because they don't want to be. Let me put it another way: elected office is a sacrifice, but it is a much larger sacrifice for women than for men.

I don't think we can change this easily nor do I think we should expect to be able to change it quickly. However, It is something we need to change and it is something we should take seriously. The easiest thing to do in the short term is to get out there and support some women candidates I suggest any of the following:

Mary Pynenburg - Burnaby-New Westminster
Patricia Whittaker - Delta-Richmond East
Brenda Locke - Fleetwood-Port Kells
Joyce Murray - New Westminster-Coquitlam
Sheila Orr - Saanich-Gulf Islands
Dr. Hedy Fry, M.P. - Vancouver Centre

In the long term I'm open to suggestions - comment away.

Ads - The Stuff of Which Scandal is Made

The first round of campaign ads are out. As an aside, in addition to being twice as long as the last election, I'm pretty sure that this election will see more money spent on advertising than any Canadian election Ever!

Liberal ads: here

Conservative ads: here


Nobody else really matters and I'm running out of lunch break

Strategic Voting

Towards the end of the last campaign nearly every leader started talking about strategic voting. Layton told people a vote for the NDP would give them the balance of power. Martin told people that a vote for NDP was a vote for the Conservatives. There are times, in certain ridings where a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives and there are times when a vote for the Liberals is a vote for the conservatives and there are even times when a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the Bloc.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that you have to be very careful because it depends on your specific riding. Take for example the last election in the riding of New-Westminster Coquitlam and the very fine point made here.

Dollar Hits 14 Year High

I'm particularly proud of this particular Liberal Government accomplishment. While having George W. Bush drive the American Fiscal Situation into the Abyss has helped, the strength of the dollar is a measure of the fiscal responsibility of Paul Martin and our party - the prudent management of a sound economy. I promise this will be my only blatantly Partisan Post today, it's just that the economist in me gets really excited about fiscal and monetary policy. Ask me about it sometime, I can make eyes glaze over like nobody's business.

John Manley was fond of calling the Canadian economy a "Northern Tiger"

I say hear us Roar!!

And for fun, here's a picture of Gilles Duceppe doing an impersonation of a Dark Elf. He's a little scary looking. Not the person I'd look to to lead my people out of capitivity:

Jim Harris Against the World

Jim Harris, The leader of the Green Party of Canada is upset. Being the leader of a party that the media refuses to take seriously can have that effect on people (Paul Hellyer and Preston Manning both understand this problem) In the last election, The Green Party received about 582 247 votes which works out to about 4.3 percent of the votes cast. This little statistic ensures that the Green Party of Canada has the dubious honour of being the most popular party without representation in the house of Commons.

A key part of every election campaign is the performance of the party leaders in the televised debates (This time out there will be 4) The details of these debates are negotiated between Canadian Television networks and the Canadian political parties WITH CURRENT SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Ok so the argument can be made that this is an unfair standard and that it is undemocratic. Here's my thing: if there is no standard, you end up with a 17 way debate. Any standard is going to be unfair to the people who get excluded. The idea that if a party has enough support to get someone elected then they should get to participate is in line with the principles of representative democracy and our parliamentary tradition and just as important it is reasonable.

This little situation causes a problem for guys like Jim Harris, the kind of problem every university graduate faces when looking for a job. (I can't hire you because you don't have experience ; how can I get experience if no one will hire me) For the Green party the conversation goes something like this:

THE ESTABLISHMENT: We can't let you into the debates until your party is able to get someone elected.

JIM HARRIS: Support for my party is not concentrated in any one place and so I need the broad public exposure of the debates before I'll be able to get anyone elected.

THE ESTABLISHMENT: There isn't anything we can do about it. These are the rules, we can't just let anyone into the debates; it would be like a circus

JIM HARRIS: That's it then, I'm going to prove that you and all your corporate share holders and the Oil Tycoons in Texas and Alberta are subverting democracy. I'm going to launch a petition. Then I might tell your daddy on you.

Another Blogger I know was a step ahead of his party, he's been encouraging everyone he knows to file protests with the networks here and he was doing this before the party got going. Let me repost my comment on his efforts (at the risk of shameless self-promotion):

Hey Phil,

Since I've been reading your blog for a while now, I thought I'd finally post a comment since its election time and politics has once again become my life.

Leaders debates can be the tipping points of campaigns and elections can be won or lost in them. If I were supporting the Green Party, I would certainly do everything that I could to get my leader into the debates but I wouldn't expect to be successful. The reason is that debates are open to the leaders of parties currently represented in the parliament. Whether or not this is a fair standard,it has been a consistent one and I wouldn't expect it to change. As a Green supporter (who I'm sure would love to make changes to the electoral system) I'm sure you recognise this as one more way in which our parliamentary system of government favors incumbents over newcomers (the reason why smaller parties are the strongest advocates of electoral reform)

The good news is that with the remarkable voter turnout for the greens in the last election and the new election financing bill, the Greens are able to put a lot more money into their campaign this time around and there is at least one or two ridings where the Greens have a better than ever chance of electing their first MP. If this happens, this will be the first time a Green party candidate has ever won an election higher than the municipal level anywhere in North America. It will also mean that Jim can be in the debates for the next election.

Please take advantage of the comments to tell me why I'm wrong...

Answer the Question you wish they asked

As many of you know, I'm political dork. One of the ways you can tell is that I have an unnatural fascination with the rules and traditions of our Parliament. I've participated in 5 different parliamentary simulations so far and have loved every minute of each of them. (Speaking of which Universities Model Parliament is coming up in the new year, sign up now) One of the great things about Parliamentary simulations is that you actually get to try your hand at things like Question Period.

For those of you who are less politically minded than I am, Question Period is a 50 minute block of time in Parliament during each sitting day where members of the house are able to ask questions of any government minister. Most of the time it is really bad theatre as everyone spends most of their time trying to get on the 6:oo news.

The thing I've learned about Question Period (and really answering political questions in general) is that you don't have to answer the question you were asked. As we like to say: "There's a reason they don't call it answer period". The first rule of answering questions in politics, whether in the house or from journalists is this:

DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU WERE ASKED;
ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU WISH YOU WERE ASKED.

Here's a link to part of a transcript where the Prime Minister is doing just that (Taken from a Media Scrum held at the Sheraton Centre in Toronto last Friday)

For those of you who aren't sure where you stand

The CBC, (long live public broadcasting) has put up an issues quiz which is a good way to find out if you line up where you think you do on the political spectrum. It only takes five minutes or so. I was suprised how many times I agreed with this guy. (I'm more of a socialist than I thought) This will come as a suprise to many of the people who keep trying to tell me I'm a conservative.

I'd love to hear what kinds of results people come up with. Post them in the comments, there may be some kind of a prize (no promises though).

Happy Monday everybody

Election Links

I promise I'm still working on a GST post. In the meantime, here are some elction-related links:

• Fellow Liberal Blogger CalgaryGrit has posted "Last week in Review".
• Fellow Young Liberal and another (far better) Blogger Jason Cherniak has posted his own "Week in Review".
• Rick Mercer (Hilarity incarnate) has gotten his hands on drafts of the Christmas letters from Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. Very funny!
• Phil Wouda thinks his leader should get to join in on the debates. Go GREEN!
• Last Week, everyone's favorite rock star, Matthew Good noticed this coincidence.
• When this kind of commentary is added to that kind of coincidence, it makes me a little concerned. Perhaps I'm just paranoid. Patrick Basham works for a right wing conservative think tank in the US.

For those of you with too much time on your hands here are some blogs that I read on a regular basis: Warren Kinsella, Monte Solberg, CalgaryGrit, Stephen Taylor, Scott Feschuck, Adam Radwanski and the Young Liberals of Quebec.

The following links will take you to the blogs of very cool people, whom I know: Christina, Sarah-Dawn, Phil, Anne, and Megan. Check out Megan's blog, she's started writing letters to God.

Leader of the Opposition - Part II

To finish up my post on Stephen Harper this week, there are two major policy announcements that deserve some attention:

1. On Wednesday, Mr. Harper gave a speech in Quebec and he said the following:
   

   A new Conservative government will ensure that decisions about criminal prosecution are independent of politicians and independent of politics. We will create an arm’s-length, independent Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This Director will take over responsibility for all federal criminal prosecutions ... An impartial prosecutor, appointed with input from all parties in Parliament, will make final, binding decisions about prosecutions ... Among other things, the Director of Public Prosecutions will decide on criminal prosecutions involving present or former government officials. No longer will the Attorney General face the conflict of deciding matters involving his own cabinet colleagues or his own party.
   

   
   I'm sure this sounds like a great idea, sounded like a good idea to me at first as well. Then I got to thinking about it. The first problem is jurisdiction, Harper's plan would be another federal attempt at usurping Provincial powers and potentially getting in the way of provincial investigations. The other problem is best exemplified by the case of Mr. Kenneth Starr. In the US, where a similar system is blately abused by partisan political stunts.
   
   IT turns out that I wasn't the only person thinking about these things. One of these people, Peter Mackay (Stephen Harper's Deputy Leader), pointed out at least one of the problems with the plan. You see he's read the constitution, here's what he had to say:
   

   ``Let me be clear,'' MacKay told reporters later Wednesday as Harper prepared to introduce local candidates at a Halifax hotel. ``A federal prosecutor has no jurisdiction over criminal offences, which include the Criminal Code.''

   That office ``would have no jurisdiction to go back and make decisions, make any sort of advice even available to investigators when it comes to provincial offences.''

   It would deal only with federal crimes such as drug or immigration offences, he said.

   I'm not a legal expert by any stretch but it seems to me that this was potentially some good politics but the execution was pretty bad. Canadians are getting a chance to choose whether Mr. Harper should get to lead the country. I'm half convinced that Peter Mackay doesn't want him to get that chance.
   

2. The other big policy announcement was a reduction in the GST. I'm probably going to dedicate a whole post to this tomorrow so I'll be brief. Mr. Harper's announcement that the Gst would be reduced to 5% from 7% is a policy disaster disguised as some really good politics. I realise that Canadians don't like the GST and that my party promised to get rid of it a little more than a decade ago. Unfortunately (and I hate to say this) it isn't a bad tax. More about this tomorrow...

The Leader of the Opposition - Part I

The suggestions keep coming folks. First I was getting e-mails saying "Tell me why you're a liberal", now after my last post, people close to me are saying, "I wish you weren't so partisan, why don't you talk about the other parties." The good news is that some of you people are actually reading this stuff.

Disclaimer: I'm going to do my best to leave the party talking points at the door and what you'll be hearing is 100% my personal bias. It's my strategy to upset everyone.

As I've alluded to in my last two posts in a press conference on Monday Mr. Harper was asked the following question: "Mr. Harper, do you love Canada?" Before I say anything about it let me post his answer in it's entirety:

"Well, I said Canada is a great country. You know, all of us who get involved in public life spend a lot of time away from our families to go across the country, probably get in many ways the most rewarding experience you could have, you know. It's not tourist travel, you don't see all the hot spots and all the great sights but you get a real sense -- the kind old and the of traveling I've done, especially the last seven or eight months, you get a real sense of Canadians, where they live, who they are and what their challenges are. And I think the country has unlimited potential. That's why I think it would be so exciting to take over at this point in our history. But I think it's necessary to make a change if we're going to realize that potential."

Let me say this, I have no doubt that Mr. Harper loves Canada. No one could possibly survive the abuse this man has suffered at the hands of the media, his competition and on days from members of his own party, unless he was committed to the country he hoped to lead. That being said, if you are asked if you love Canada (particularly if you want to lead the country) START THE QUESTION WITH THE WORD YES!!!!!

As far as gaffes go that one was fairly minor yet it found it's way into nearly every article written about the campaign the next day. Remarkable.

There will be more to say about the man who would be king tomorrow. Goodnight.

Why I'm a Liberal

After sending out an e-mail to all my friends last night (and apparently a few people who aren't) I got an e-mail or two back asking me why I'm a Liberal, or as it was put most tactfully: "how unconditional is your support for the Liberals?" It also turns out that back home there's a prayer team committed to saving my soul from Liberalism.

I thought that before I turn my attention to the election that's just getting going, I might discuss my partisanship somewhat.

The Liberal Party of Canada...

Let me put a disclaimer at the top of this: No one is going to agree with everything a party does or says all of the time. I'd also like to add this, no party has a monopoly on patriotism, I'm confident that the Conservatives and the NDP care about Canada as much as we do, even if sometimes it's hard to say.

Since before I've known anything about Canadian politics, the Liberal party has been the only party in the country to represent all of the regions. It is my hope that this will not continue to be the case but the "regionalisation" of Canadian politics has been one of its saddest facts for a decade or two. For me, the Liberal Party is the home of Laurier and of Pearson. In my mind the Liberal party exists as a tradition, one whose successes include Bilingualism, Medicare, Peacekeeping, Multilateralism, and programs which support those least able to support themselves. So in this sense, I'm fairly unconditional in seeing myself as a member of this same tradition.

It's because I want to be a part of that tradition that I'm a member of the Liberal Party. It's the vehicle I've chosen to make a difference in Canadian Public Policy. The fact is that political parties are democratic institutions and they are responsive to their membership. There are many issues in the party where I hold the minority viewpoint and when it comes to these issues I work hard to change minds and fight for change and I've had some sucesses. Do governments make mistakes: Yes. Have the Liberals governed perfectly: No. Do I still believe that Paul Martin and his cabinet will do a better job than Stephen Harper and Peter Mackay: YES!

For me all political choices revolve around the idea that "Politics is the art of the possible." Politics is about doing the best of the available options and then in meantime, between choices, working to improve the options. Would I like to see Canada's aid targets raised: Yes. Do I believe that the Liberal government should continue to improve ethics and accountability in government: Yes. For me political choices are almost always more complicated than I want them to be and they never come down to a simple yes or no.

I've avoided political theory and election platforms in defending my party but I would like to add one more thing. In democracies, there is often a gap between the skills one needs to govern well and the skills one needs to get elected. This is why I'm comfortable with full time political organisers and with parachute candidates. The fact is that a guy like Michael Ignatieff wouldn't get elected unless people who knew politics better than he does helped. Same goes for a guy like Allan Cutler. That's the real reason that when it comes to election time, I invest time and energy in the great team of Candidates running for the Liberal party. This time around I'm working to help Minister David Emerson get re-elected in the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. Let me tell you, I've never been prouder of a candidate in my life and we're going to win it.