Shooting blanks

You can spend all day, as I do, watching Don Newman on CBC Newsworld, or CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live, or that ''mystery political insider'' on CBC's The National (and what is up with that anyway?) until you get moss on your butt.

You can read newspapers 'til your fingers turn black.

But if you're not reading the blogs, you're not getting the whole story on Voterama 2006.

Take for example, this Washington Times op-ed endorsing the Conservatives which I blogged over the weekend, which the Star quoted yesterday and which the National Post picked up today. (See how it works?)

It appears that, only in Canuckoblogistan, some of the under-reported aspects of this campaign are starting to gain momentum.

Case in point? How American interest groups are attempting to influence the outcome. Ask yourself how often you have seen, read or heard this story, a one-day wonder in the mainstream media reported by the Globe and Mail. (I added the link.)

The man known to have blazed the trail for the religious-conservative movement in the United States rallied Canadian faith leaders yesterday, urging them to get behind the vote.

Ralph Reed, who led hundreds of thousands of members of the religious right to get the vote out during the era of former U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told delegates to a Christian conference last night to put on their work boots and tennis shoes and knock on doors.

"Come Jan. 23, there's going to be a new Canada of conservative traditional values," he told a cheering crowd of 400 people who greeted his remarks with a standing ovation.

"History is not static and the making of that history will begin on Jan. 23 when the people of Canada go to the polls," he said.

Bloggers such as Cereberus, CMoore.com and Flashpoint are not letting this one go.

There's nothing wrong with trying to engage groups in your party umbrella, and Christian conservatives have become a big part of the conservative movement around the developed world. But why is an American leader taking the reigns on this? That really makes the optics much, much worse.

The Tories want Canadians to believe that they represent Canadian conservatism. If that's the case, why are they using American evangelical leaders to rally their cause?

Other stories not getting the big play they deserve include how American social conservatives are trying to mess with our same sex marriage laws and how the U.S. gun lobby is horning in on our gun laws.

The organization that has been fighting Canada's gun-control laws has offered election help to the Conservatives, and is bringing in a top gun from the U.S. National Rifle Association to show it how to be more effective, it said yesterday.

Larry Whitmore, director of sport development for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, based in Vaughan, Ont., said in an interview that "we've asked the Conservatives to tell us which ridings they consider the close swing ridings that a little bit of input from some of our clubs and our members would maybe have an impact."

With all these American interest groups taking a scary interest in Canada's election - and in helping the Conservatives - shouldn't journalists be asking party leader Stephen Harper his opinion on these matters? Shouldn't they be getting him on the record as to what he thinks of the NRA sending lawyers, guns'n'money to lobby for looser laws? Shouldn't they be pinning him down on the matter of American homophobes coming here to against equal rights for gays and lesbians?

If you want to track the bloggers who are on top of these issues, follow the breadcrumb trail that starts here at Cerberus.

What other American money and support are the Conservatives getting? What other interference is there with our election by the Americans? And just what does Harper say about this intrusion on our sovereignty in support of his party?

<SNIP>

Harper has long been criticized for being too pro-American, for surrounding himself with American advisors, for thinking about the U.S. first before Canada, and he has done a pretty good job of distancing himself from his own past and prior words. So you would think that Harper would should be speaking out against this unwanted support. Unless, of course, it is not unwanted.

Or try Robert MClelland who recalls the fuss that righties made during the last election when Michael Moore advised Canadians not to vote for Harper. Remember the cries of American interference back then? There were petitions and protests and pundits and plenty of stories in the National Post.

Harper's silence is deafening. Why is it allowed to go on?

(Hat tip to Jason Cherniak.)

Comments

[Jimbo Jones]

You have to remember that millions of Canadian Citizens (yes millions) live in the US. Many such as David Frum have even reached high levels in the US. As long as these lobbyists are Canadian Citizens I do not see a problem with them. As long as these organizations are the Canadian Branch of US Organizations using Canadian people and money (eg. NRA Canada) its okay. Otherwise it is illegal.

[NPS]

You asked a very good question.... be interesting to hear any response.

[Chris Edey]

Antonia, this is completely ridiculous.

You seriously believe that Stephen Harper should be called to account what a speaker invited to a Toronto religious convention had to say on a variety of subjects of great interest to a large segment of Christians?

I assume you think Harper is responsible since the G/M article you linked to stated that 37 per cent of born-again Christians are plannig to vote Conservative. What about the 50 per cent of the same group planning to cast a vote for Martin or Layton? Why are you not calling on them to speak up as well?

Why Harper? Hmmm...

Anyhow, I wrote a full response here if you are interested:

http://edeysblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/god-dammit-who-forgot-gas.html

[Antonia Z.]

No, I don't think he should be ''called to account." I think he should be asked his opinion on all these American interest groups lending their support to their Conservative party.

It's a fair question.

[koby]

NPS it is funny how Conservative MPs keep showing up at these things. Jim Flaherty, John Carmichael, Rondo Thomas, Michael Mostyn, and Tim Dobson were all there for Reed.

The question that is not being asked is this. Why do Republican backers care? The short answer is that various Canadian policies (gay marriage being a fine example) could and to a certain extent already are being seized upon (at a State level) by a listless Democratic party. It is opening them up to new avenues of thought and giving them a sense of what is possible. As Bill O’Reilly has said “The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140742,00.html

I have tired to answer that question in greater depth here. http://canadawide.blogspot.com/2005/06/vote-liberal-it-will-annoy-republicans.html

[katie]

Here is an email address that CPAC has been advertizing for anyone wanting to ask the candidates questions.
I hadn't thought of this one to ask and have already sent in three myself so please someone submit such a question for Harper.

question@electiondebate.ca

[Dana]

Antonia, it may be a fair question from your perspective and mine but from the perspective of Harperites it mustn't be.

Any questions asked of Harper that touch, even obliquely, on subjects like the US conservative movement or religious right are immediately taken up by them as evidence of either media bias or anti-Americanism or both.

Similar thing happens with questions asked about Harper's past statements regarding issues upon which he is announcing current election plankage. For example, attempts to get him to explain how his boasts about helping eliminate the Family Allowance Program align with announcing a pale imitation of it in the form of a taxable $1200 cheque must be deflected and turned into something other than simply a question.

In fact, *any* pointed questions of Harper must be avoided.

Thus you get the above characterization of a simple question asking for an opinion as being "called to account" or otherwise made to seem responsible.

[Pauline Brock]

And the Canadian model is what right-wing Americans are shooting AT:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/creech/051129

for instance.
I'm almost afraid to make a real effort to search how prevalent Canada-bashing is in the red state-rightwing-whateveryouwanttocallit culture.

I guess it gives them something to focus on, something to show their constituency, if you don't follow our lead, THIS is what will happen.

As for Harper if he says nothing, doesn't it mean he approves, is complicit, and who could argue with that if the efforts bring out more voters for him?

[Bill-Muskoka]

Hmmmmmmmm! I wonder what the border officers, with CBSA, are doing at our borders and airports, and other points of entry to determine 'The purpose of your visit is?'

Subversive activities are still a crime as I recall. So, is it just well-knowns like Martha Stewart who are prevented from entering Canada?

Imagine where a Canadian would be sent if they tried that in the States?

We need to tighten up our border against the Barbarians at our gates!

[Adam in Whitby]

As with Michael Moore's comments about the last election, this is a nothing issue. Really, we're against activists meddling in other people's democracies?

So are we against our activists heading to the US to inspect them for weapons of mass destruction?

http://tinyurl.com/9wkwo

Are we against our activists heading to Iraq to document and protest the US occupation?

http://tinyurl.com/aaj2c

Are we against lobby groups like CAIR and the CIC here in Canada? Could somebody show me an ethnic community in this country that DOESN'T have a group involved with lobbying the government here, and attempting to influence policies in foreign countries?

I don't agree with Reed, nor with his Canadian counterparts, on pretty much anything. But I'm no more threatened by him coming up here and stumping than I am by all the anti-sealers who show show up every year. Okay, thanks for your opinion, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

The only reason to promote this story, really, is to increase in the public the perception that the Conservatives are the same as the Americans. Which is, of course, a Liberal talking point. But is that "news?" If Harper's smart, his response will be "This is the same attempt to change the subject as usual" and leave it at that.

[Antonia Z.]

Perhaps I should have emphasized this graph from the Globe story:

"Several Toronto-area Conservative candidates were in attendance, including Jim Flaherty, John Carmichael, Rondo Thomas, Michael Mostyn, and Tim Dobson."

I believe that indicated that at least some CPC candidates endorse Reed's words at least one some level, no?

[Dana]

Actually, Adam, the better reason for promoting this story is the potential for the theocrats to gain an even more significant foothold in the conservative party. Or the liberal party, or NDP for that matter. We do have a significantly different demographic here, as one of the Canadian pastors pointed out, and the likelihood of the same transmogrification of the public square is less likely here. Nevertheless it's still a concern that institutions with tax-free status that in our civil tradition have remained apart from direct political action are now using their tax-free status to raise money for and participate in direct political agitation.

The NRA has been doing their thing here for years and don't concern me as much as the encroachment of the theocrats.

I was raised in the fundamentalist environment. My father who was born in Atlanta, Georgia was a minister in a blood red, fundamentalist church during my childhood. (He later changed and became very ecumenical and aplogized for my childhood experiences. He's gone now.)His surviving family siblings and families still live in the US, mostly still in the south, and are still aggresively evangelical, intolerant and sanctimonious. Basically all the stereotypical characteristics. The stereotypes don't exist because they're fictions; the stereotypes exist because they're actually accurate. And that's the Reed, Falwell, Robertson, Dobson crowd. The American Taliban is most assuredly not an inappropriate moniker.

Oh...and just because something is a Liberal talking point (or Conservative or NDP for that matter) does not automatically disqualify it from being truthful or honest. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't but it's not automatic.

[matt]

Weak, very weak.

Three points:
1. Reed endorsed the Tories, presumeably because his party is "conservative" and prefers the traditional definition of marriage. That's the only "help" they're getting. And being a person of faith isn't a bad thing "en soi", to the point that to do so is protected under the Charter (and any implicit fears of foisted beliefs ought to be mollifed by the Charter as well).

2. The group who invited Reed has a history of supporting more Liberal candidates than Tory (55/45).

3. There are much better things to debate on the left side of the divide: whether the GST cut would increase the poor's disposable income, or if the Kirby report recommendations would impact low-income access to healthcare.

[Hockey Fan]

All the inhabitants of the Liberal echo-chamber were very quick to dismiss Harper's GST cut as "bad economics" and his child care plan as "idiotic".

And, although, countering these policies with banal and perfunctory "analysis" may provide some comfort it doesn't change the fact that these policies are effective and will attract many votes to the Conservative party.

As confusing as it may be to all the Socialists out there, voters respond to the promise of tax cuts. And a two point cut in the GST translates to tangible savings.

Compare that to Liberal tax cuts which no one understands and which don't kick in for who knows how many years anyway.

And regarding day care, voters now have a choice between an Orwellian model of institutionalized day care (Liberal) and actual cash that a struggling parent can use as he/she sees fit (Conservative).

It's time for Liberals to start to get worried. It may be painful for a Liberal to accept but not all voters are willing to endlessly donate large portions of their salary only to watch Ken Dryden fritter it all away. Regrettably, many unenlighted voters can still be persuaded through tax cuts and cash payments.

Both of these Harper promises will be big vote getters.

They may well be enough to get him elected.

[Dana]

Yes, Matt, the Constitution of the United States ought to mollify as well. May I just note that it hasn't?

The "help" is more than merely an endorsement.

As for the rest, thanks for affirming my earlier post.

[Dana]

Hey, hockey fan I think you've taken one too many shots to the head.

You start off by praising Harper for cutting a tax and giving people cash and end by regretting that "unenlightened voters can still be persuaded through tax cuts and cash payments."

So does that make you an unenlightened voter? Guess it does.

[koby]

Look Harper has said he wants to move the party more to the right on social issues

"while retaining a focus on economic issues, we must give greater place to social values and social conservatism, broadly defined and properly understood."

http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html

He has also said he believes that he could emulate the success the Republican's had in using talk of traditional values to turn the table.

“rebalancing means there will be changes to the composition of the conservative coalition. We may not have all the same people we have had in the past. The new liberal corporatist agenda will appeal to some in the business community. We may lose some old "conservatives," Red Tories like the David Orchards or the Joe Clarks.

This is not all bad. A more coherent coalition can take strong positions it wouldn't otherwise be able to take - as the Alliance alone was able to do during the Iraq war. More importantly, a new approach can draw in new people. Many traditional Liberal voters, especially those from key ethnic and immigrant communities, will be attracted to a party with strong traditional views of values and family. This is similar to the phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrats" in the United States, who were so important in the development of that conservative coalition.” http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html

Good god, what really irked me about Conservative convention coverage was that while some in the MSM had claimed that Harper had moved the party to the middle on social issues, all of the examples Harper hit on in the above mentioned social conservative manifesto found a home in Conservative policy declartion and that Harper ended his convention speech thus. "Thank you. God Bless Canada"

[Bill-Muskoka]

Dana,

I, too, have had personal and first hand experience with the Funnymentalists as I grew towards real understanding of matters of spirituality and true faith.

To say they are dangerous is a gross understatement. Not so much the pew sitters, but the con artists that control their thinking and pulpits. The Elmer Gantry's of the movement.

The entire concept of literal interpretation of scripture started in about the 3rd century A.D.. Before that time the scriptures, regardless of sect, were viewed like sound philosophy in an allegorical manner.

What I saw happen in the U.S., and its reflected in their society today, was a simplistic view of reality. Many believe that they need do mothing to make a better world because they will able to 'escape' from the consequences of their own actions.

Therefore, they have lost any sense of action/reaction, quid pro quo, or their fellow mankind.

The same thing has repeatedly happened throughout history, i.e. the Inquisition, Nazi Germany, Rowanda, Somalia, yada, yada, yada.

One thing I learned as a verteran is that all blood flows red. All feel the same pain and fear, and all are my fellow human beings. There is no 'Fire Insurance' available!

Thanks for the personal sharing. I think we all feel a tad fearfull to do that because the 'stereotypying is so strong with those who profess knowing God!

The issues are not about Liberal or Conservative, NDP, or Green. They are about us, our families, our neighbors, and fellow Canadians. We are in this together!

[David Akin]

I'm a journalist on the Harper campaign. Been there since it started and heading to Layton's campaign next week.
Sounds like a fun issue you raise but here's the problem: While you've had your head down over the keyboard, a real live election has broken out. Leaders are presenting policy positions. People in coffee shops and union halls are actually debating policies. Talk radio has less name-calling and more discussions of the value of a GST cut on the nation's productivity. Whether you like him or not, it's been Harper that has sparked these debates almost every day on the campaign so far. The NDP has been chipping in too, either in reaction to some Conservative announcements or with their own policy proposals. The Liberals -- well, they believe they're better off keeping quiet but at least they are jumping into the debate with relatively little name-calling and plenty of policy wonk logic.
You'll be surprised to hear that I and the gang of journalists following Harper around are actually engaging him in debate about these issues during the 20 minutes or so a day we get a chance to speak to him because we believe our readers and viewers are more interested in some new thinking on those issues than trying to pursue some sort of "agenda" journalism.
Still, it's a long campaign ....

[Bill-Muskoka]

Chris Edey,

Okay, I read your blog. What I see as the difference is this.

The Cree promoting not buying power from Hydro Quebec is an economic issue, not a political choice issue.

Likewise, the U.S. drilling in ANWR DOES directly affect our Inuit, again not a politcal choice issue.

Again, the U.S did strike al jazeera facilities with missles. that is an international law issue, not directly political.

In short what you list are people issues not affecting the U.S. election process.

That is the difference that separates the issues brought forth by Antonia.

You seem to fancy yourself a thinker? Perhaps focusing back on what you admittedly know most about, i.e. Bruce Springsteen, would be a good path to follow?

[TB]

It's not just speakers, Matt. It is fundraising and organizers and databases and mailing lists and equipment, etc. etc.

[Dana]

David, I'm glad to hear that. What does Harper have to say about the second of his 2 percentage points off the GST? Is it a promise for this campaign or the next or the one after? Has anyone asked him why he was so enthusiastic about getting the Family Allowance scrapped only to re-propose a thin gruel version a decade later? Why don't you take the initiative on behalf of this Canadian to ask his opinion of Reed and the Christian Coalition coming to Canada to help him out?

Let us know what he answers will you?

Won't do it? Well, there's a surprise.