King Leonidion's 308

BCE: Harper, the Wolf from 300

I read an article by the National Post's chief business correspondent entitled "Election first, takeover later".

In it, there is a hint of the Harperites' policy moves post-winning a majority. Let's call it a paw showing out from under the sheepskin.

It of course dovetails nicely with Harper's kick in the balls to income trusts. The article describes how BCE was lobbying Ottawa to allow it to recover money via an American takeover of it.

This push has now stopped and BCE is holding off because it would be bad politics for Harper to have to defend, during an election, the GIANT takeover of a Canadian iconic corporations under his watch. Nevertheless, as Theresa Tedesco writes, Maxime Bernier, has mused "about deregulation and busting down protective barriers in the telecom industry".

Somewhat related...

King Leonidas' analogy of Xerxes as the wolf fits my Harper reference well. If one remembers, Xerxes in the film believes himself a god. Enough said. Harper isn't as camp or as large (height-wise if not by weight) as 300's Xerxes but he definitely has the same moral compass.

Let's hope that Dion's Liberals manage to get close to the Spartan's 300 soldiers to defeat this Canadian Xerxes. Hmm, 308 soldiers has a nice ring to it... I'll have to figure out how to use Photoshop to make a graphic of that!

GG: Libs invited to form government?

This Quebec election has me thinking more about minorities. If the Harperites lost a non-confidence vote, is the GG not obliged to ask the Liberals and other opposition parties to form a government? Liberals plus NDP would fit; is that enough seats?

I'm too lazy to look up the federal history on these things, but shouldn't that be what happens?

And back to Quebec... Wouldn't it be funny if the Liberals and the PQ formed a coalition government? It is not in the ADQ's interest politically and as opposition to support the government. The ADQ would win the next election for sure, now that people scared of the PQ feel confident in not having to vote Liberal.

PQ + Lib = Love, how ironic.

"Huge Loophole" - Lobbying for Lobbyists - Thanks, Toews!

The Accountability Act is weak; I have no doubt about that. With so many government backroom mid-weights wanting to scrape something out of their influence, the government must oblige their buddies and allow lobbying. Also, how else would government know what it should do to help big companies and fat cats. It's wrong.

What's more wrong is the latest crap in the news, that rules whose ink is barely dried and only half signed into law are now going to be made weaker!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070305.wxlobbying05/BNStory/Front/home

The more awful part is that the government is the one pushing for the watering-down.

Canadians deserve respect from their government. This new move is disgusting. People should register their dissatisfaction: www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca

TAXI for ONE!

Take a F@cking TAXI!

It is disgusting that cabinet ministers are hiring limosine services for transportation (to say nothing about the waiting charges, with the engine on no doubt!).

Dion has proved for more than a decade that a high-profile, controversial cabinet minister does not need special transport privileges that come at a huge and wasteful expense to taxpayers.

The government should ban such waste as a policy to be implemented immediately.

Billion-dollar companies have strict rules about transport/travel perks. Canada's government should be no different. Why do shareholders get more responsibility and accountability than taxpayers?

Social Justice: Healthcare

I took a step back from this week's news and saw the following forest from the trees:

1. Dion took his sustainable development policy to its most seemingly infertile ground and came away with positive growth.
2. He went to the Prairies to meet and greet shortly after defending the Wheat Board.
3. Overall, he's a player on the Prairies and his policies sell.

(4. The Wajid Kahn stunt blew up in Harper's face.)

So, I'd say that's the "Environment Pillar" box ticked. What about the other three pillars? Dion needs to sell a unified policy platform, and quick.

Next up, SOCIAL JUSTICE: Healthcare should be the focus.

Jeffrey Simpson often gives me my thoughts on the federal government:

thoughts

As Simpson suggests, BE REAL! Address not the retail healthcare politics of "wait times" but show you can do more. Healthcare issues affect everyone and addressing issues of drug costs, provincial patchwork and healthcare management will have max resonance. The federal government has a HUGE influence on drug costs.

There is not a family in Canada that is not concerned about care for the elderly and costs for that care. They worry about their own retirement as well as their elderly parents. The below-35's worry about having to pay for everything themselves these days.

"E-Health" fits nicely with streamlining through innovation. While Conservatives might sell "cuts" and such, Liberals can sell "sustainable healthcare". Better technology improves diagnosis, better patient info management streamlines care. The more digital we get, the less waste - both of money and resources. This all dovetails nicely with the work Dion has done already.

The Liberal record on healthcare is easily defendable. The Chretien and Martin governments put huge quantities of money into both research and provincial transfers. Meanwhile, Canadians still don't trust the Tory agenda on Health and Harper's ridiculous announcement on a Friday afternoon (no surprise there) is such an easy target.

So, let's get talking!


Revisited: Martin's View of Dion's Potential

This was from Dec. 14 's Globe:

Dion's defining moments

LAWRENCE MARTIN

The image is being set now. In the next few fortnights, Canadians will decide whether they have finally found something fresh and noble in a political leader or whether it's the same old carnival act that can never be changed.

There is a suspicion out there that Stéphane Dion is a man of honour, a politician of dignity with true character.

True character is the reverse of trying to be all things to all people. It means not seeking others' approval. When, as a political leader, you stop doing that, and just be the essential you, people want some of what you've got, some of that core. You're the magnetic field.

But politics is about selling, reaching out, pandering. And so here was Stéphane Dion in his first week as Liberal leader, already in the grip of the ugly claws of the enterprise. He was faced with a middling controversy over whether he should maintain his dual French citizenship. It was a sensitive issue for him, one that cut to his heart and, in responding, he got testy.

His answer was sound enough, but he couldn't help thinking of the political equation. Well, if maintaining my French citizenship loses me votes, he said, he might have to reconsider. In other words, let's cast aside the principle involved here and make a decision on the basis of politics.

That wasn't the man of honour talking. It was hardly the new politics. It was an example of him looking over his shoulder, seeing the dark shadow of pollsters in pursuit, about to smother the light within.

If Canadians see more of that, they will lump Stéphane Dion with the others and his advantage will disappear. Opponents sense his appeal, his self-contained piety. They see it in the polls and are out to drag him down to their level. No one can remain unsullied in this game, they think. We'll get him.

So here was Stephen Harper in the House of Commons Tuesday, coming at Mr. Dion with a calumny almost in league with Richard Rich's slandering of Thomas More. Your record on the environment, the Prime Minister hollered is “no different than the record of Alfonso Gagliano on accountability.”

The cerebral Quebecker turned his head away in despair as the acolytes on the government benches — forgetting that their own global-warming record is one of shamefaced foot-dragging — bellowed their approval of their PM's odious comparison.

Stephen Harper has an impressive skill set. He had a chance, himself, to bring more honour to governance. But since the opening bell when he elevated a floor-crosser and an unelected senator to his Cabinet, he has shown himself to be a leader whose abiding imperative is political opportunism. His Senate reform, announced yesterday, which would allow voters at last some say in Senate appointments, is a step forward that he need not have framed in the context of political partisanship. His brazen approach in this regard has cost him, as voters, turned off by this kind of politics, have responded with declining approval ratings.

Hence the Dion opening is all the greater. The Leader of the Opposition must find a way to resist the temptation to respond in kind to the cheap attacks and slanders. To succeed, to avoid being dragged down into the brothel, the rules of engagement are many: He must be a champion of principle. He must remain stoic, keeping the level of discourse high and noble, holding to his true character. He must, while letting other caucus members tackle the seamy questions, be seen as frequently as possible with the other tower of integrity in the Liberal thicket, Ken Dryden. Mr. Dion must avoid overexposure and he must avoid the big type of position change — remember John Turner's accepting Pierre Trudeau's list of patronage appointments in 1984 — that can be so damaging to the stature of a leader.

There have been others who have come to the big job unsullied, only to be pulled down into the sludge. They stopped being themselves.

Few have had the opportunity Stéphane Dion now possesses. He can do something greater than score a win for his party. He can bring respect to what Liberal Stan Keyes once fittingly labelled “a whore's game.”

lmartin@globeandmail.com

HOLY SHIT! We Did It!

Dion DION DIIIIOOON!

I have a smug email to write to Chantal Hebert, and a pie to bake her.

With elation in me, may I just say there are no other ministers from Chretien's government that I respect more than Stephane Dion and Lloyd Axworthy.

I wish Dion the best as he takes off to the battle of the backroom and has to deal with all the creepy crawlies in the halls of power, this time with his finger on the trigger.

It has been over a year since I declared my support for the dark horse in the race and I hope he remembers us little guys when we offer our opinions in the future.

KEEP IT REAL

Now, Dion, get Lloyd to be Foreign Minister again.

Disgusting Tactics

VijaySappani.com highlights something I really do not like; the use of "ethnic votes" to command politics. Politicians use the tactics too much, as I've posted before.

"More Sikh supporters of Kennedy have moved over to Iggy, this is in addition to the other Indo-Canadians who have moved to Iggy earlier. We are working to hear on a deal on something big with the Tamil delegates, who will hopefully come over to Iggy, addiing another 75 delegates."

It's precisely this management of divisions to control people that I believe the "nation" debate alluded to.

Shame on those who do it.

Leadership Bollocks in the Mashed Potatoes

Today is a very disappointing day. Ignatieff should really be kicked hard in the emotional balls for his methods, however I oppose violence of all types.

He got the ball rolling, passed it to the separatists, they chucked it to Harper, he scored... with parliament and maybe "soft-nationalists".

I totally agree with Wells' comments today and Dion's comment BCerinToronto highlighted - what are the rest of us, mashed potatoes?

I don't get it, these motions are not intellectual debate, they are politics, to start playing with them means you want to start playing the political game they are.

Dion does not, why then would he support the motion? I suppose for politics. But it bothers me. He better explain it to me.

The argument that Kinsella puts up that Dion cannot say "it doesn't matter, everyone calm down" is not totally valid for me. HOWEVER, it is not "nothing". It is in the long-run, I imagine. Afterall can anyone remember the "Calgary Declaration" wording which Bouchard didn't sign? Not many.

In the short term, with a week before the leadership convention, the optics of Dion's support do not make sense. I think Dion should explain why supporting this resolution does not detract from his stance on federalism. Or, force us to move on to bigger issues. Prove it is nonsense.

Rae sent out a spokesman to say "no comment", as did Kennedy. This does not show leadership. Rae is so full of hot air you'd think he exhaled straight into Ignatieff's ego.

Did I mention Ignatieff is a complete twit? His antics remind me of his support for Iraq's invasion. He thinks he can invade Canada and fix it. I imagine the only articles he read outside of the country over thirty years were the bimonthly ones in the NYT that state "Canada is still cold, the French Canadians want to separate."

Wii: His #1 Choice

1. 

Simpson Touching the 3rd Rail? Most Intriguing.

Is this as close to openly saying it?

I have to give it to Simpson, he's a professional. I don't think there is a columnist in the national news that I respect more than Simpson. I was surprised to read today's supportive but balanced spout on Dion.

In previous columns, Simpson has been supportive of Dion and made efforts to highlight his campaign. So, given the weight of these taken with today's column, I'd say this is as close as Simpson will come to touching the 3rd rail and outright supporting a Liberal candidate.

In case you can't get to the Globe column, here it is:

The most intriguing candidate in the Liberal race

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Stéphane Dion yesterday released a modest but intriguing policy on modifying pensions for those who work past 65, an intelligent bit of thinking about the future shape of the Canadian work force.

Will any delegates at next week's Liberal convention read it, and be swayed to join him? Probably not, because the leadership contest is not, by now, about policies, but character, judgment and who can win the country.

Mr. Dion has presented the most policy-oriented campaign. He's focused on three critical issues: making Canada much greener, improving its competitiveness and, of course, maintaining national unity. He's also run a very smart strategic campaign on a limited budget, impressing a lot of Liberals who gave him little or no chance to win.

A string of cards, however, must fall his way for him to become leader. It's unlikely they all will fall, but an outside chance exists that they could. In which case, Mr. Dion would have pulled off an astonishing political upset and defied most of the party establishment who favour either Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae.

The Dion path to victory runs as follows, but be forewarned: The path is complicated.

Mr. Dion finished fourth in the delegate-selection process, about 60 votes behind Gerard Kennedy.

But Mr. Dion slides into third place on the first or second ballot. He does so because he wins more ex-officio support (such as former Treasury Board president Marcel Massé, yesterday) or support from delegates of the four also-rans.

At this point, Mr. Dion's path to victory depends on the deal now being negotiated with the Kennedy camp. The deal is the classic prisoner's dilemma: Whoever is fourth agrees to support whoever is third. So if Mr. Dion is, indeed, third, Mr. Kennedy would go to him. (And vice versa.)

Why might that happen? Partly because of similar policy positions. Partly because too many Kennedy supporters in Ontario cannot abide Mr. Rae, the former NDP premier, and disagree with Mr. Ignatieff's views on Quebec. And partly (largely, perhaps) because if Mr. Kennedy sees himself as an eventual chief, he would want a francophone to be the next leader.

With many Kennedy supporters coming on board, Mr. Dion then jumps ahead of Bob Rae, who was in second place. Mr. Rae then moves to Mr. Dion, who thereby defeats Mr. Ignatieff on the final ballot.

Or, Mr. Ignatieff fades after the second ballot when it becomes clear that he cannot win, so that Mr. Dion faces off against Mr. Rae on the final ballot. Mr. Ignatieff's Quebec supporters largely support Mr. Rae, but his Ontario and Western ones can't abide Mr. Rae and go to Mr. Dion, making the Quebecker a narrow winner.

If, if, if and if. No other candidate has so many imponderables to resolve en route to victory. Yet, it is surprising how many people no longer discount Mr. Dion's admittedly outside chance.

Mr. Dion's strongest asset, and biggest liability, is himself.

He's a man of integrity, courage and intelligence. He demonstrated those characteristics for nine years as a cabinet minister. He survived the grossest abuse in Quebec for his fierce defence of federalism.

Civil servants who worked for him admired his masterly briefs and penetrating questions. He did a fine job on climate change at home and presiding over the United Nations conference on the subject in Montreal.

But, as former cabinet colleagues will attest, Mr. Dion can be dogmatic. He neither suffers fools gladly nor compromises easily. It is significant how few former ministers and MPs he has attracted. He tends to lecture, even hector, those with whom he disagrees. He does not let people down lightly.

He is also from Quebec. His English is good, and getting better, but is not perfect. A lot of Liberals, some of whom would never say so publicly, believe the party has been too long led by Quebeckers.

The movers and shakers of the Quebec Liberal Party, emaciated as it is, don't want Mr. Dion. They think he would be poison in his home province. They are quite likely wrong, but they spread this message outside the province to Mr. Dion's detriment.

With his policy ideas and his ironic positioning as a long-time minister running almost as an outsider against the establishment, Mr. Dion is the most intriguing candidate in the race.

jsimpson@globeandmail.com

Rae 37, Dion 34

I like these numbers, ladies and gentleman, I believe we have a race!

"Thirty-seven per cent of respondents said they would vote Liberal or consider doing so if Rae was the leader, compared with 34 per cent for Dion, 33 per cent for Ignatieff and 31 per cent for Gerard Kennedy."

-Toronto Star

Of course, if you read the Decima poll's other numbers, Dion should really be making an appointment to get his teeth glossed up.

Garth 1, Lib Leaders 0. Hey, Brison?!

I was disappointed to not hear a peep out of the Liberal leadership candidates regarding Garth's announcement. While woefully difficult to get elected, independents are popular. People like me like the underdog. With Garth in the spotlight, a candidate could have taken the opportunity to comment on how they would rejuvenate the democratic process.

As I've posted before, free-mouthed MPs make for a responsive government. I still believe in the whip system to get things done, but I believe the UK has it right in allowing backbenchers to speak up.

And with respect to nomination meetings, I think it is funny that the guy with the most street cred is Brison. Unlike Dion, Iggy, and Dryden, he wasn't a celebrity or handed a safe seat. Firstly, he can comment with respect to his stepping-aside for Joe Clark. Then, he can talk about how he wrestled with becoming an independent when Mackay screwed the PC's, and Brison's decision to join the Liberals.

For the Conservatives, they've had a few flights as well, remember the DRC. That was an adventure. And the continuing issue of floor-walking is no doubt related, affecting both parties.

I don't think Garth was too far wrong to say '10 to 20 independents wouldn't be a bad thing. It is a democracy, share the wealth.

Too bad the Liberal leaders didn't think it worthwhile talking about.

Rae 858, Dion 859

From the Edmonton Sun today:

As of the most recent fundraising reports to Elections Canada, Rae received 858 donations totalling $992,879, for an average donation of $1,157.20.

On the other end of the spectrum, Dion's 859 donors each chipped in an average of $318.50, adding up to $273,611.

Was encouraged to read that.

Canada 19, USA 9

From CBC's Sunday night interview with Dion, after having to wax on about the 'nation' issue, Dion conveys exactly what the average family is thinking:

"But, what I want to say above all, is it’s sad that we have spent minutes about [the 'nation' question] when we have so few minutes to discuss about the real challenge Canada has to face.

Do you [know] in China there are 350,000 engineers more every year in China paid $14 per hour.
Do you know in Canada from any nation you want to choose who will want to be paid $14 per hour?

We need to compete with them, and if we want to make it a priority to count the number of nations in Canada to put in the constitution I will not be this leader."

He goes on to answer the question of Economy vs Environment:

"The truth is our economy is built on waste and we have enjoyed it for more than a century: a lot of natural resources, a lot of water, a lot of space to dump everything. And we have not been careful and up to now it didn’t hurt us too much. I think now it will hurt us. And we need to learn to be energy efficient. The Liberal government has been good under the circumstances.

Don’t forget that 19% of our GDP in Canada is in the hands of what we call the large funnel emitters the big polluters, 19%. It’s 9% in the United States, so I don’t want these industries to leave the country because if they leave the country we’ll loose jobs. But also they will go in countries where there is no regulation and they will pollute even more and the planet will not be in the better situation. I want them to stay. I want to give them demanding but reasonable regulations that meet targets to reach.

I want to work with them, with the market in creating a carbon market in Canada. It’s the best way to proceed. I want to boost the efficiency of the new sources of energy in Canada, to wake up all the innovation that is dormant in this country, to find the solutions.

Let me talk about Alberta. If we reconcile the incredible economic growth in the very, very worrying environmental threat that you have in Alberta to make something sustainable, if we succeed in Alberta we’ll succeed everywhere in the world after. And we will export these solutions and we will make mega tonnes of money with it. It’s what I want to do!"

Actually, a funny read of the transcript is here:

CBC's Evan Solomon: [...] We didn’t hit out Kyoto targets. so, for all the talk, there was no action. How do people trust that Stéphane Dion is talking action and not just more talk?

Dion: When I became minister of the environment? July 2004.

Solomon: 2004, that’s right.

Dion: So one year and a half.

Solomon: And you released the green paper and yes I know about the Montreal Protocol, but…

Dion: But what?

Solomon: Well, I just ask you: was the Liberal leadership record on the environment, in their decade of leadership or more, was it good or bad?

Cute. It shows that reporters are so use to politicians making promises that huge things can be done properly in a short period of time.

More Oil than Water

Fort McMurray, the town of tar, black gold, and a beautiful meandering Athabasca river. The oil in the sands naturally gives the river water in some pools a rainbow sheen. Scary that.

The above pictures are of the same general area, around the tar sands outside Fort McMurray. You can guess which photo is predevelopment. The projects are incredible, they don't go deep, they go wide. But heck, the area is huge. The problem is energy.

The planned projects taken together will use more water in the river than actually exists. But as these plans are still being developed, well, it's first man built wins. One feels bad for the guys who built earlier downriver; then again, they're already reeling in the cash, and got in when there was no labour crisis.

Dion was on top of the issue that matters most when he went to Ft McMurray today. The place needs energy to function, to work... to fund the government. Things are happening so fast, or slow if you don't consider what's at stake, and the sums being spent are enormous; a half billion dollars on R&D, per project.


Jeffrey Simpson MUST be on his payroll.

Besides being a subtle supporter of Dion, he wrote a series of articles presenting the situation of anarchy in northern Alberta and the challenges faced.


You can read the articles here:

Neutralizing the oil sands' carbon emissions
http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2006/000857.html

Mighty sources of energy, mighty big threats
http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2006/000856.html

Oil sands vision, red herrings and a sea of platitudes
http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2006/000853.html

Fort McMurray gives new meaning to 'boom town'
http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2006/000854.html

Like Dryden says of guns, nuclear power scares me. It probably scares me less in Dion's hands if he keeps his word on being able to look voters in the eye when he says "I have a plan for the nuclear waste". Importantly, the alternatives to provide the power are just as dirty, if not more, and guarantee some degree of environmental disaster.

The tar sands are a reality, the world demands the oil. Canada must shine in our development of them. Good for Dion for highlighting this.

(Stephane, don't forget to send Jeff some new glasses for Christmas)

Coyne on Dion... Dean to follow

I look forward to Howard Dean waxing on about Canada for an hour; it will be interesting to see how his speech writers and him present the cross-border relationship, now that he's been DNC Chair for a while (with a nice big win in his hat).

I hope the closing speech of the Liberal convention is made by a triumphant Dion, someone who I hope Dean will acknowledge as a fellow progressive, thoughtful leader who's not affraid of a fight.

Andrew Coyne's Nov.11th National Post column is a nice piece of support for Dion:


The surprising Mr. Dion

Andrew Coyne, National Post
Published: Saturday, November 11, 2006

'For example, you are no doubt aware that France insisted on portioning the island of Mayotte from the Comoros at the time the latter gained independence because the residents of Mayotte unequivocally expressed their desire to maintain their link with France."

Well, it's not quite "we shall fight them on the beaches," but it was unquestionably Stephane Dion's finest hour: the guerre de plume with Lucien Bouchard, Bernard Landry and other separatist luminaries in the tense aftermath of the 1995 referendum, in which the then Intergovernmental Affairs minister publicly demolished the legal and political arguments underpinning their claims of a unilateral right of secession.

It is for that, and the associated Clarity Act, that the owlish Mr. Dion is most renowned. Which makes him a rarity in Canadian politics: a candidate for high office whose rise to prominence was fuelled, not by back-stabbing his colleagues or the patronage of powerful families, but by closely reasoned arguments.

I stress: This is Canadian politics, where nice guys do not even get a decent burial, let alone the chance to finish last. Yet here we are, with three weeks to go until the Liberal leadership vote, and Mr. Dion -- decent, upright, clinically logical -- has as good a chance as any to win.

This was not supposed to happen. "Even Stephane Dion might be in the race" was the exasperated headline in Le Devoir at the news he was considering a run. A dogged adversary, even the nationalists had to concede, and a surprisingly passionate Environment minister, but come on: leader? Yet if Mr. Dion has exceeded expectations in this campaign, it has not been for parading his virtue, as the principled intellectual who floats above the fray. He has not campaigned as an "anti-politician," promising to "do politics differently" and otherwise advertising his disdain for his chosen profession. He has simply demonstrated a practical mastery of it.

"When Stephane Dion spoke, his [Cabinet] colleagues put down their coffees, stopped signing correspondence and listened attentively," Eddie Goldenberg, Jean Chretien's lifetime factotum, writes in his just-released memoirs. "He had learned a lot about government, a lot about politics, and a lot about how to get things done." This sounds right to me. Even as a political scientist, Mr. Dion's work had tended more to the applied than the theoretical. In office, his studies continued, only with himself as the research subject. He was learning how to do politics -- not differently, but better.

Or more precisely, how to do politics, while remaining true to himself. Other academics-turned-politician have not managed the transition well. Either they develop into barking partisans, in the mould of John McCallum or Irwin Cotler, self-consciously parodying themselves in the hope that everyone will get that they are playing a game. Or, like Michael Ignatieff, they shrink before our very eyes. The question Mr. Dion faced was how to advance as a politician without turning into a prancing buffoon: how to succeed in politics without becoming really trying.

The way to square that circle was not to play the game of politics, but to learn the art of being politic -- politics, in the best sense of the word. In Summer Meditations, written after he had been president of Czechoslovakia for a year, Vaclav Havel wrote of how surprisingly easy he had found the adjustment from dissident writer to practical politician -- he, who had dedicated his life to "living in truth." All it took, he wrote, was "taste." Or that's the word his translator used. Another word is "tact."

These are the skills Mr. Dion has acquired: of choosing your words carefully; of framing issues to your advantage; of showing different sides of yourself at different times, as events dictate and circumstances allow. Nothing in that requires one to be insincere or inauthentic -- you can be tactful without being guileful -- and so it is that he almost never rings a false note. Even when he boasts -- for example, that he has never had to retract or clarify a statement -- it is matter-of-fact, straightforward, the kind of thing you say in a job interview when asked to name your strengths.

The only question was whether Mr. Dion could attack, when the occasion demanded. We have seen that he can. What was it he said about Bob Rae's tenure as premier? That he had the worst record in the western world? That his disastrous experiment in deficit spending amounted to "giving Monopoly money to the people"? Harsh, yes. But unfair? No.

If there is a politician he resembles, it is Stephen Harper. I think Harper has perhaps the broader strategic vision, and a greater capacity for ruthlessness. But Dion is at least a match in analytical rigor, and far more disciplined. Both men get tagged with that lazy journalistic cliche, that they lack "charisma." But they are the furthest thing, either of them, from the cautious timeservers that would suggest. Both are risk-takers, aggressive in combat, unafraid of being unpopular, determined to prevail. The best minds of their parties, it would be a treat to watch them debate.

Anybody-But-Iggy Results

As no new votes seem to be coming in, here are the results.

Out of 129 votes:

The Winner: Dion 38%


Kennedy 24%
Rae 22%
Hall Findlay 6%
Volpe 3%
Dryden 3%
Brison 3%


I think you can still see the results Here.

Anybody-But-Ignatieff Web POLL! (no booing allowed)

Poll now closed. Thanks for playing!