Mad As Hell

When Lyndon Johnson was asked why he didn't fire J. Edgar Hoover, he famously replied that he wanted Hoover  "inside the tent pissing out and not outside the tent pissing in." Michael Harris writes that the Conservatives are masters of pissing inside the tent:

One wonders if the Conservative Party of Canada will ever hold a leadership race without turning it into a master class of mud-wrestling, hanky-panky, and mutual denunciation.

They are usually so busy slagging each other, any notion of policy is at best an after-thought. Sorry guys, but squealing “freedom” at the top of your lungs while tying up a city is not a policy.

Pierre Poilievre, the slur-king of the current leadership, now says that the Patrick Brown campaign is cheating.

Poilievre lodged a formal complaint, accusing his rival of reimbursing membership fees paid by people who agreed to join the party. Brown has made public that he sold 150,000 memberships—a number Poilievre claims is bogus. How, one wonders, would he know, one way or the other?

In addition to the reimbursement charge, it is alleged by the Poilievre camp that the Brown campaign offered “additional financial inducements.” What does that mean? Cash, a bit of bitcoin, free beer? What?

But this kind of cat fight isn't new:

It is interesting that Poilievre has already smeared Brown before, repeatedly calling him a liar. He accused the mayor of Brampton of lying about his position on sex education in Ontario, his position on the carbon tax, and in his critique of the Harper government, of which Poilievre was a key member.

Poilievre seems to have forgotten all about his own attempt in government to de-tune democracy with the risibly named Fair Elections Act, and that other legislative stinker from Harper-times, the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Practices Act. Strange way to support immigrants.

Poilievre is dissing Brown because Brown could hold the key to who wins the party leadership in September. If Brown’s membership numbers are correct, and the leadership should go to a second or third ballot, Brown could very easily deliver a victory to Jean Charest. So far, the Charest camp has been coy on its membership numbers, saying only that it has a path to victory in the fall.

That is precisely why Poilievre tried to paint an unflattering picture of Charest as a philosophical liberal who was in the pocket of the Chinese as a private consultant. He’s worried.

If Poilievre can get people talking about the moral poverty of his rivals, they may forget about his own blunders on this campaign. He extolled the virtues of bitcoin to Canadians as a hedge against inflation, without telling them he had investments in it. He later claimed that he checked with the ethics commissioner, who gave him the green light.

Poilievre also did his Donald Trump imitation in a childish outburst about firing the governor of the Bank of Canada.

Even Conservative MP Ed Fast came out against Poilievre for his comments about Tiff Macklem. And Poilievre is still missing in action on some big files—from climate change, to the rising tide of authoritarianism around the world. That hole in his resumé earned criticism of the party from former Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell. It isn’t hard to figure out who she is talking about.

The Conservatives don't win elections because they're mad as hell. Most of all, they're mad at themselves.

Image: CBC

Poilievre's Future

At the moment,  if Pierre Polievre becomes the leader of the Conservative Party his future looks clouded. Robin Sears writes:

Poilievre will likely fall victim to the torment faced by the last two leaders. There’s managing a political base whose views are in sharp contradiction to those of a vast majority of Canadians, with an inability to pivot to positions that are not repulsive to that majority. He’ll also be inheriting a party and caucus irretrievably divided on core issues.

There are three obvious flashpoints: guns, climate and COVID. Most Canadians want our epidemic of handgun violence brought under control. Poilievre will not say how he will do so, as his base is vehemently opposed to any limits on their freedom to own a dozen assault-style weapons if they so choose.

Conservatives around the world have fallen into the trap of framing the fight against climate change as a left-wing conspiracy, none more hysterically than peculiar Pierre. There is no pivot for him here, either. As fires rage this summer and floods drown dozens of communities this fall, he will be left high and dry politically.

Nor will he be able to slough off his COVID baggage, as the public health challenges continue. From his vaccine blarney, to his flirtation with insurrectionary truckers, to his sneers at the public health measures that saved thousands of Canadians from death, Poilievre will drag behind him a very heavy COVID ball and chain, one that his opponents — inside the party and out — will be sure to keep a spotlight on.

His most serious weakness in securing the confidence of Canadians, perhaps, is that he will not have the support of at least a third of his own party on day one. Whether it is Brian Mulroney, Patrick Brown, Michael Chong, Rona Ambrose or Lisa Raitt, the list is long of party elders who will express their sorrow — and anger — at the political dead end that Poilievre seems to be dragging their party into.

So Poilievre may, indeed, meet the same fate as Andrew Scheer and Erin O'Toole. But there is another possibility:

This week, polling firm Abacus found that seven out of 10 Poilievre supporters are at least open to the idea Davos elites may have a “secretive strategy to impose their vision on the world.” And more than a third are open to the statement “Bill Gates has been using microchips to track people and affect their behaviour.” Sadly, the numbers for all of Canada aren’t that much lower on these conspiracies.

So it may be easier to ride a Trumpian tidal wave of anger to political success in Canada than most of us thought. One may hope that Poilievre’s leadership opponents do a better job of exposing this would-be emperor’s nakedness, and that the Liberals and New Democrats pound him with their biggest guns relentlessly.

Poilievre may yet become the Trump of the North.

Image: Quora

It's Getting Warmer

Things are beginning to heat up. Apparently, Jean Charest will announce his bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party on Thursday. Stephanie Levitz writes:

While the federal Conservative leadership race sets the course for the party’s future, some story lines from the past are shaping the race.

Former party leader and Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, for instance, has been sending signals he’s not willing to take a back seat if former Progressive Conservative leader Jean Charest runs.

The two interacted often when Harper was prime minister and Charest was premier of Quebec, where he harshly criticized Harper often and in particular, during the 2008 election in which the federal Conservatives again failed to secure a majority.

There is talk, too, that Brampton mayor Patrick Brown will enter the race. Like Charest and Harper, Brown and Pierre Poilievre have their own history:

In 1998, as Charest was on his way out as PC leader, Brown had become the president of the party’s youth wing for a two-year term.

A year after Brown took over the youth wing, Poilievre was the president of the University of Calgary campus club, where he expressed frustration with the party’s direction under Joe Clark, according to coverage from the Calgary Herald.

Brown had mused about kicking out the anti-Clark factions from the party’s youth wing; Poilievre objected, threatening to take his club executive over to the United Alternative movement.

Then, of course, there is Charest's connection to Brian Mulroney -- who would like to wield some influence in this contest. Some look forward to Mulroney's resurrection. Others hope he will stay in his tomb.

Things could get very warm.

Image: windobi.com

The Easy Path

It's beginning to look like Peter MacKay will have an easy path to the leadership of the Conservative Party. Martin Taube writes that easy victories can lead to disasters. He points to the ill fated voyage of Kim Campbell:

In 1993, Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Kim Campbell declared her intentions to replace outgoing prime minister Brian Mulroney. She was well-liked by caucus, and more than half of them backed her. There was hope she would evolve into a Canadian version of then-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

Prominent Tories like Perrin Beatty, Pat Carney, Joe Clark and Michael Wilson all opted against running. They likely sensed a massive tidal wave toward a political coronation, and put their leadership ambitions on hold. In most cases, for good.

Campbell turned out to be a disaster. Her weaknesses became painfully obvious. She had barely any political experience, a poor understanding of economic policy, and no filter with the public or press. Her huge lead almost evaporated, and she was fortunate to beat Charest for the PC leadership.

Leadership races test candidates' metal. Campbell was new and untested:

During her infamous interview with Peter C. Newman for Vancouver Magazine, she called Canadians who stayed out of the political process “apathetic SOBs,” and said she became an Anglican to keep away from “the evil demons of the papacy.”

The PCs went down from 157 seats to 2, and never recovered. Campbell lost her own seat, and resigned shortly thereafter. In her concession speech, she said, “Gee, I’m glad I didn’t sell my car.” It was the only amusing comment she ever made.

It's true that Peter MacKay has been around for a lot longer than Kim Campbell was. But he's been out of the game for awhile and he may be rusty. He -- and the Conservative Party -- should get a run for their money.

Image: Spencer Fernando

Scheer Stupidity?

So it's Andrew Scheer. The Conservatives dodged a bullet when they narrowly rejected Maxime Bernier's full blown libertarianism. They now claim that they have chosen Stephen Harper with a smile. Throughout the campaign, they kept saying that the problem wasn't their policies, it was their failure to sell them.

Scheer's acceptance speech was full of standard Conservative boilerplate. So the party is still not where the majority of Canadians are. But Scheer has another problem. Susan Delacourt writes:

If Scheer thought keeping order in the Commons was no walk in the park during his term as Speaker from 2011 to 2015, he’s soon going to learn it’s a lot harder to break up brawls in your own caucus — disputes that have proved to be hugely divisive in Canadian politics in the past.

When Scheer finally took the stage on Saturday night (in front of more than a few Conservatives with mouths agape over this latest reversal of polling fortunes), he offered the usual call for party unity. “We will win when we are united,” he said, praising Stephen Harper, the leader he’s replacing.

Harper kept the party together by ruling with an iron fist -- and by dishing out the perks of power:

Can Scheer hammer those pieces together after this weekend — with only the perks of Official Opposition to hand out, along with the promise of cabinet spots in the distant future? We’re going to see an interesting display of political management dynamics over the next year or two.

They've always been a fractious bunch. That's why they rejected Michael Chong. I suspect they will come to regret not choosing the candidate who best understands this country. They may eventually come to the conclusion that their choice this weekend was Scheer Stupidity.

Image: Edmonton Sun

No Stanfields

The Conservative Leadership Race -- thankfully -- is coming to an end. The whole spectacle has left Michael Harris underwhelmed:

The only thing that matters to this post-Harper cast of wannabes — the only thing they have to offer — is winning the leadership. They have made a gift of their blind ambition to their followers. How visionary of them.

Yes, the highest recommendation Conservative leadership candidates (and their many enablers in the media) can come up with is that they can win in 2019. For proof, they point to the candidates’ fundraising success. Could there be a better definition of contemporary politics — money and power for their own sake? No one beats a political opponent anymore; they out-fundraise them, out-market them and then outwit a voting public exhausted by information overload.

These folks do not inspire because they are treading water:

Instead of rebuilding, the CPC is trying to parade a new leader figure down the tawdry runway of image politics. They are hoping it can all be done by a guy in natty suits who played football in high school and has a weakness for chocolate. (There I am with you, Max.)

They should have learned from the Liberals. Exactly what did they think was behind that mighty implosion of blind ambition that gave Canada and the Grits Michael Ignatieff — and practically blew the Liberals to hell in the process?

Only one candidate -- Michael Chong -- appeals to Harris. A card carrying Conservative friend of mine cast his vote for Chong. He entered the party supporting Bob Stanfield. But, over the years, he turned away in fury as Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper proved to be pale imitations -- or the exact opposite -- of Stanfield. The last time around he voted for Justin. But he is now deeply disappointed with Trudeau the Younger.

I wonder how many other card carrying Conservatives feel as he does. There are no Stanfields in the running.

Bernier

The number of Conservative leadership candidates continues to shrink. Erin O'Toole dropped out the other day. And, if the polls are correct, Maxime Bernier continues to lead the pack. But, if he wins the contest, Alex Boutillier writes that Canadians have cause to worry, because Bernier would make radical changes to the country:

Bernier would get the federal government out of health care, transferring the full responsibility to provinces and paving the way for more private delivery.

Bernier would tie Canada’s foreign aid to “morality,” and believes billions of it should be spent instead on tax cuts and healing the poor at home.

Bernier would end federal “welfare” for Canadian businesses, and axe popular tax credits for things like kid’s hockey gear and teachers’ classroom supplies in favour of across-the-board tax cuts.

And Bernier wants to do it all in a four-year term, should he become Conservative leader at the end of the month, and should he defeat Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in 2019. 

While Stephen Harper believed in many of the same things, he also believed in incrementalism. The Bernier diet, however, will be force fed:

Bernier is proposing dramatic change quickly — and his agenda certainly can’t be accused of being hidden.

“They’re conservative ideas, they’re conservative values,” Bernier said this week, discussing his libertarian-leaning platform.

“You want me to be a Liberal?”

He continued, after agreeing the interviewer doesn’t want anything in particular: “No, no, but yeah, I want change. I’m a Conservative, and I’m a proud Conservative.”

A Proud Conservative. But not a Progressive Conservative. If Bernier is elected to lead the party, it will be abundantly clear that the lunatics have seized control of the asylum. 

Image: The Toronto Star

No Teachable Moments

Michael Harris was not impressed by the final Conservative leadership debate:

For what felt like hours, the candidates alternated between snarking at their colleagues and making grandiose claims about their own fitness for high office — the latter usually amounting to a reference to the real jobs they had before stumbling into the distorted universe of contemporary politics.

The more the hopeful talked, the more it became apparent that defeat has taught them nothing:

Former House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer offered fresh proof that his party is where dinosaurs go when they retire. With a smarmy smile pasted on his youthful face, Scheer insisted that the Conservatives were not crushed in the last election by Justin Trudeau and the Liberals because of their policies in government.

Heavens, no. It wasn’t the dysfunctional fighter jets without price-tags, the snitch line, the long string of deficits and the burgeoning national debt that put an end to a decade of Harperian bliss. Nor was it the serial lying, the politicization of the Justice department, the RCMP and just about every other department of the public service that could be brought to heel by executive intimidation.

It wasn’t a hopelessly one-sided Middle East policy, the abandonment of Canada’s veterans, the instinct to bomb first and talk never, or the personal destruction of the PMO’s enemies in trumped-up police investigations and show trials. (Luckily for the rest of us, the biggest one — the Duffy trial — went terribly wrong for the government.)

No, see … the policies were great. Canadians loved them. It was just that they weren’t explained properly, said Scheer, pointing a rhetorical finger at rivals Chris Alexander and Kellie Leitch. He, grinning Andrew, will be the Explainer-in-Chief and bring the voters back to the CPC tent, or boat, or whatever it is.

There was one exception. Michael Chong's time as a Conservative has taught him a few things:

Chong, who took on Harper as a Conservative minister and paid the price, knows that without a credible environmental policy — including a carbon tax — the Tories will never win in a city like Toronto. Now, facts may not matter much in this race, but I can’t be the only one who remembers that Stephen Harper proposed a cap-and-trade system in 2006 and 2008 — years in which the Conservatives won federal elections.

Chong has learned something. The rest of the pack have had no teachable moments.

Image: new957.com

One Wonders

 Brent Rathgeber is not happy. He writes that, philosophically, he's a conservative:

As a conservative, I believe in a market economy. I believe that, when it comes to government, less is more. I appreciate that taxes and government are unavoidable — but I’d still prefer less of both. I believe that governments should respect taxpayers and tax dollars and that it should operate in a transparent and accountable way.

But, these days, he's not a Conservative:

I’d been a member of this party since its inception, and was elected to the House of Commons as a Conservative twice. I personally know 12 out of the 14 candidates in the current leadership race. Three of them are friends of mine. But this time, I couldn’t think of a good reason to get involved.

This leadership race has been a train wreck, dominated by Trump Lite xenophobic dog whistles and embarrassing displays of ignorance of Canadian federalism and how our Constitution works. Part of the problem is the math. With fourteen candidates chasing the prize, a candidate needs to be colourful to attract attention.

Thoughtful policy positions don’t stand a chance when the circus comes to town. The loudest and the most outrageous clowns always shout down the rational and the reasonable. By this standard, we’re led to believe that Kevin O’Leary and Kellie Leitch are frontrunners. Brad Trost also wins undeserved media attention by telling a lot of people (who never asked) that’s he’s troubled by “the whole gay thing.”

Rathgeber really doesn't know who will win; but he's not hopeful:

Given the ranked preferential ballot and each of the 338 ridings counting equally, predicting a winner is pretty tough. Perhaps a second-tier candidate like Michael Chong or Andrew Scheer or Lisa Raitt can emerge and save the party from itself.

But I am becoming less and less hopeful. This contest will be decided ultimately by those who paid $15 for the privilege of getting involved. That means the next leader won’t necessarily be the smartest or the most electable candidate, but someone who can sell many memberships and attract second and third preferences from the competition.

One wonders how many other people feel as Rathgeber does.

Image: QuotesGram

The Northern Trumpists

Michael Harris writes that, as the Conservative leadership race comes down to the finish, you have to wonder what the party learned under Stephen Harper's tutelage:

Some days it’s hard to tell if the Dubious Fourteen are political birds of a feather — or warring members of rival motorcycle gangs. There are no excuses for the tawdry display of ego and ambition that so far has passed for a leadership race. For one thing, the party should have learned its lessons from the years of lying, cheating and democracy-busting in the Harper era.

Consider the sound an fury over phony Tories and the echoes of those robocalls:

The same dudes who gave us the In-and-Out Scandal, Bruce Carson, Dean del Mastro, the Duffy/Wright Affair — and very likely the telephone lists of non-supporters for the robocalls affair — is even cheating in its own leadership race. They can’t even replace Yacht Girl without resorting to fake memberships purchased anonymously through the party’s own website.

This is no small matter. Party rules require that memberships be purchased by personal credit cards or cheques. As candidate Chris Alexander said, this was not just a case of people being signed up to memberships without their knowledge. Someone was using software that masked IP addresses and allowed multiple members to be signed up from the same computer — high-tech cheating not entirely unlike the variety used in the unsolved robocalls scandal.

Kevin O'Leary is threatening to use the notwithstanding clause against the provinces:

When was the last time you heard a candidate in a leadership race threaten to use what amounts to the Notunderstanding Clause of the Constitution to impose his policies? Or ask for an audit of his fellow candidates and their alleged party membership sales, as Kevin O’Leary recently did?

O'Leary, Leitch and Bernier seem to have cornered the Conservative market. Lisa Raitt, Michael Chong and Erin O'Toole, Harris writes, "need to find a new home."

Image: Huffington Post

Keeping People Out

The Conservative leadership race is almost at the finish line. And the contestants are firing up their base, not building a big tent. Bruce Anderson writes:

On a range of policy issues, the Conservatives seem determined to re-create the same coalition of voters that supported them in 2015, when they were handed their hat. Stephen Harper’s party bet heavily against compassion for refugees and tolerance towards Muslim immigrants. Most observers in the Party acknowledged that the low point of the campaign was when Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander stood at a podium to announce that Canada needed a special measure—a toll free snitch line—to report the barbarism of your next door Muslim.

That didn’t work very well. But both those former Ministers are running, and hanging out with the Ezra Levant crowd which never wants to talk about anything else. Too often the only news about this race was the fight over who cares enough to keep Canada ‘Canadian’, if you know what we mean.

To win an election in Canada, a party has to do what Justin Trudeau did -- appeal to millennials: 

You don’t have to be elbows deep in polling data to know intuitively what we see in our studies—that most young people are progressive and open minded, global in outlook, interested in new ideas, compassionate about the refugees, concerned about climate change, and inspired by technology and innovation.

Younger voters want smart, creative thinking about how to shape an evolving Canadian economy in a constantly disrupted world. They want a society that’s welcoming and open, not suspicious, anxious and closed. 

They need a big tent. But Conservatives seem obsessed with keeping "the wrong kind of people" out.

Image: SafetySign.com

They Have To Speak French

Back in the 1990's -- when Preston Manning burst on the scene -- a new kind of sign sprouted on lawns in my neck of the woods. Its message was blunt: "No more prime ministers from Quebec." The sign's unstated assumption was that French is spoken only in la belle province. But, when Brian Mulroney was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, Stephen Maher writes, that he

liked to tell Conservatives that they had to choose a leader who could speak both languages. “There are 102 ridings in the country with a francophone population over 10 per cent,” he said. “In the last election the Liberals won 100 of them, we won two. You give Pierre Trudeau a head start of 100 seats and he’s going to beat you 10 times out of 10.”

New Brunswick is our only officially bilingual province. Manitoba has a significant French population. And northern Alberta also has a a significant number of French communities. That's why Maher maintains that, if the Conservatives choose a leader who can't speak French, they'll lose. His or her French doesn't have to be perfect:

It is not necessary to speak both languages as well as the Trudeaus, Mulroney or Tom Mulcair. Stephen Harper never captured the music of the langue de Molière, and Jack Layton’s Montreal street French sometimes sounded too folksy, but both politicians were able to express themselves, which is what is necessary.

It works the same the other way. Jean Chretien’s English was not elegant, but he could communicate enough effectively to hammer home his point.

Chretien's syntax could be just as fractured in French as it was in English. But the message was always the same -- and Canadians knew it.

What does that mean for the Conservative candidates?  In the upcoming French only debate:

Chris Alexander will be good, and Michael Chong, Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole ought to be able to unspool some talking points, but Brad Trost, Kellie Leitch and Lisa Raitt face de facto disqualification if they parler Français comme une vache Espagnole.

The same rule will apply to whomever the New Democrats choose to be their leader. Prime Ministers don't have to come from Quebec. But they have to speak French.

Image: J.J's Complete Guide To Canada

Transferring Personalities

Andrew Coyne writes that the Conservative Party has reached a fork in the road. It can, he writes, either be a party of big ideas or small fears:

Will it be the party of big ideas, or small fears? The party of free markets and limited government, or the party of nativism and intolerance? The party of equality, unity and civility, or the party of race-baiting, identity tests and virulent us-and-them polemics?

Will it embrace the conservatism of Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney — or the know-nothing populism of Donald Trump, his imitators and idolators?

Clearly, Coyne would prefer that the party be disciples of Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney rather than Trump. But there's a problem. Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney's ideas are failed ideas. And the fears  people like Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander are fanning are not small. Now Leitch wants women to  legally be able to carry pepper spray. There's a reason she's now being referred to as Dr. Pepper. More worrisome is the clear indication that she is casting her lot with White Supremacists.

I've always thought of the modern Conservative Party as the Harper Party because it has been -- essentially -- a cult of personality. And with no new ideas to run on, it risks transferring its cult of personality to another personality -- The Great Orange Id.

Image: Slide Player

Lessons Learned?

It's been a year since the Harper government was sent packing. But, Gerry Caplan writes, if those vying to replace Stephen Harper are any indication, their defeat taught the Conservatives nothing:

There’s the widespread view among people within the party that the problem was their “tone.” It’s not at all clear what they think they mean by this, but it seems to have little to do with a series of mean and bigoted policies that failed to appeal to any but the Conservative base.

The Harperites have, so far, not morphed into Boris Johnson or Donald Trump. However, they haven't morphed into anything:

For example, take Kellie Leitch, who seemed at first to be ashamed of her shabby role in the Conservative pledge to establish a tip line to report barbaric cultural practices to the RCMP, but has since doubled down on the very notion.

As a leadership candidate, she is promoting a “discussion” of Canadian values for immigrants. Yet when given an opportunity by interviewers, she refuses to discuss anything except how very, very much she wants to discuss. So she simply advances her meaningless slogan, then repeats it over and over again without any elaboration.

Chris Alexander now claims he loves immigrants. But, Caplan asks, "Who can doubt his sincerity?"

Then there's Maxime Bernier. "Quebec MP Maxime Bernier wants to turn Canada into a libertarian dystopia; he’s the Ayn Rand candidate, beloved no doubt by many impressionable first-year university students."

And, of course, there's Brad Trost:

Someone named Brad Trost – allegedly an MP from Saskatchewan – offers to turn the clock back by repudiating both a woman’s right to choose and same-sex marriage.

The Conservative Party itself entered modern history only in May when its convention voted that marriage need not be defined as between a man and woman, something Canada itself had decided a decade ago. But history is moving far too fast for Mr. Trost and for that third of the convention delegates who voted against the resolution. But early indications are that they are resisting Mr. Trost’s reactionary lure.

Harper's Conservatives were always stuck in the 19th century. The only member of the party who wasn't was Michael Chong. And, for that reason, Chong will face a tough slog for the leadership of the party.

Lessons learned?  There's no evidence of that. 

Image: WordPress.com

The Last Person Standing

Yesterday, Tony Clement dropped out of the Conservative leadership race and Chris Alexander dropped in. The Conservative ranks are teeming with ambition. But ambition is expensive. Brent Rathgeber writes:

Running for the leadership of a Canadian political party is no modest undertaking. Including the registration fee and a subsequent charge for access to the membership list, it costs $100,000 to play.

But that’s only the beginning. Canada is a big country. Given that the leadership contest is weighted — that is, the 338 electoral districts are each assigned an equal number of points in the final vote — it’s important that serious candidates at least show up in most ridings and regions. That’s a lot of flights, a lot of hotel rooms.

In the end, it's money that will determine who will leave and who will go. And money is tied to an MP's record. Clement's Achilles Heel was his record:

He will never be able to walk back the reputation he picked up during the 2010 G8 Summit. Clement was in charge of a $50 million infrastructure program intended to reduce border congestion; some of the money was used to build parks, walkways and gazebos in Clement’s riding in advance of the summit. To a lot of people, he’ll always be ‘Gazebo Tony’.

Although that pork barrel episode probably guaranteed his re-election as MP in Ontario Lake Country, it also destroyed his credibility with fiscal conservatives across the nation.

Clement is only the first contender to drop out. There will be others. It's impossible at this point to guess who will be the last person standing.


Image: Huffington Post

Words To The Wise

The Conservative Party, Lawrence Martin writes, is at a crossroads. But they seem to be tempted to offer more of the same:

Although they lost the last election, there are few indications our Conservatives are bent on major change. The leadership candidates who appear to have the upper hand are vigorous right-siders. Anyone thinking Tony Clement lacked hardline credentials need only look at his security platform laid out this week. Throw people considered to be potential terrorist threats behind bars without trial, he said, if they cannot be monitored 24/7.

The problem is that what they offer only appeals to their base -- which admittedly is unshakable. And party moderates don't seem to have strong voices:

Peter MacKay, who wasn’t really moderate to begin with, has backed away. Michael Chong has talent and integrity but is too mild-mannered to mount a strong charge. Deepak Obhrai is well-meaning but won’t get to first base in the balloting.The wets might consider Cape Breton, N.S., native Lisa Raitt one of their own. Now that Mr. MacKay is out, Ms. Raitt, who performed capably in cabinet, will enter the race. As a Maritimer she’s a more compassionate conservative and may be the best hope for change.

Certainly they need a change in tone. But they need more than that. Martin warns:

If they stay on the wide right flank, if they don’t make a concerted effort to broaden their appeal, they’re taking a big risk. With the New Democratic Party shipwrecked, the Liberals can draw on major support from the left. Leave them the centre as well and it’s game over.

Words to the wise.

Image: hilltimes.ca