BLOGolection?

Others, such as David Warren and Stephen Taylor would disagree, but as I wrote in my treeware column today, I don't think blogs will have had much effect on Monday's outcome.

So much for the commonly held idea at the start of this long winter of our electoral discontent that the growing community of Canadian political bloggers would have a profound influence on the vote. Indeed, there's little indication that it made much of a dent at all with the great huddled-against-the-cold masses.

True, there was the storm about the Liberal attack ads that was heightened by bloggers who parodied the spots. But the mainstream media (MSM) were all over that disaster right from the beginning.

<SNIP>

Oh sure, the Canadian blogosphere can probably take credit for keeping the income trust scandal alive while the MSM, which broke the story, were waiting for new developments. But the blogs didn't really advance the story, they mostly just railed about how the media weren't ranting enough about it.

Bloggers also made a number of missteps, notably spreading false rumours about two CBC employees.

One was that CBC Radio One's Promo Girl, Shauna MacDonald, was the voice of the Liberal attack ads. She wasn't.

The other was that a hapless researcher for The National was trying to engineer one-sided, anti-Harper coverage. An email she sent out in an attempt to solicit candidates for a gimmicky election program was misinterpreted, and circulated among the right-wing blogs. It cost her her job.

In the end, the one person who most felt the blogo-sting is Parkdale-High Park Liberal Sarmite (Sam) Bulte whose altogether too-close connections to movie, music, publishing and television industry lobbyists gained notoriety on the web, thanks mostly to the work of legal expert Michael Geist, who also pens a column for the Star.

Two things.

One: Nothing against blogs or bloggers. But I do think that they give themselves more credit than they deserve ... at this point. Despite how some of them boast about all their hits, I have to wonder how many of them are ''unique,'' and not just returnees just coming back for another comment or clicking to see what's new. I'm not saying that Canadian blogs won't achieve a critical mass by next election, or sooner. I just find that there's a lot of talking amongst ourselves. So far anyway. Just a thought.

Two: I think the voice of the attack ads, and this is my guess, was actor Maggie Huculak who is not, repeat not, a CBC employee. Perhaps the Cons who falsely pinned Promo Girl as the voice thought MacDonald narrated the ads were confused because Huculak read the scripts for CBC's Canada: A People's History. Just another thought.

Fighting words

Yesterday punkalawyer Warren Kinsella re-purposed (sub. req'd) his cranky, killer, character-assassinating and contradictory Monday rant about the media in his favourite newspaper, the National Post.

Change is coming -- and not just for political parties represented in the House of Commons, or for bureaucrats in Ottawa. Change is coming for Canada's media, too. Recently, as the inevitability and magnitude of the coming Conservative win have become apparent, I've spoken to Tory, NDP and Liberal activists about the media players that will win and lose in the new Ottawa. Here is a synthesis of their views, and my own ...

This on the same day it endorsed Stephen Harper (which was to be expected now that he's winning and will likely be in a position to fund that pet Asper project, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights) and, in an op-ed, slagged Liberal candidate Dr. Carolyn Bennett who is running against CanWest Global exec Peter Kent in Toronto's St. Paul's riding. Both pieces are available free. Interesting, no?

Digression: [In today's eFrank (sub. req'd), there's all kinds of dirt about that race, and why Post chair David Asper is now supporting a Conservative when he's always been a vocal defender of the Liberals. Indeed, I hear that, in 2004, when the Post editorial board also urged readers to vote Conservative, the Aspers went ballistic, because of that precious museum cheque they've been awaiting. (BTW: In the event of a Conservative win, watch for Financial Post columnist Diane Francis to assume a more prominent spot in the CanWest empire.)]

Back to Kinsella. His rehash of his hatcheting of journalists he believed hurt his padrone Jean Chretien, which was actually toned down some from his original blog post in which he unfairly named names that did not deserve to be named, still attacked CBC's Keith Boag, again without substance. (Hmmm. Why doesn't Boag rate a profile here?)

Naturally CBC Honcho of all News Media Tony Burman fired off a letter to the Post which was published today (again, sub. req'd.):

If "change is coming for Canada's media," as Mr. Kinsella predicts, let us hope that columns like his latest will be part of the past. This "one-time Liberal aide" represents the sleazy side to Ottawa politics that traffics in unverified innuendo and self-serving rumour.

Mr. Kinsella's criticism of CBC Television in Ottawa runs counter to recent independent surveys that indicate that CBC's campaign coverage has been far more respected by the majority of Canadians than its competitors. Readers would have better understood Mr. Kinsella's motivation if he had disclosed that the one television network he compliments in his piece -- one of CBC's competitors -- is the one that will employ him on Election Night. Conflict of interest, or what?

But his attack on the CBC's Keith Boag is unconscionable. It is, by any standard, a smear and one that has been invented out of thin air. Mr. Boag is an award-winning journalist who over many years has established a reputation for honest and insightful journalism. In his career achievements, he towers over Mr. Kinsella.

It was shameful for him to make these charges without a shred of evidence. If "change is coming," as many Canadians seem to be indicating, let's start by getting our politics out of Mr. Kinsella's gutter.

Today Kinsella went at it again, dragging my blog into it. Read it here. (You have to scroll down to Jan. 20 because Kinsella annoyingly doesn't do permalinks.)

No one, precisely no one, has asked me what I think about Tony Burman's understated letter about Yours Truly in today's Post ("gutter," "innuendo," "conflict of interest," blah blah blah), but I figured I'd post something anyway...

Then he goes on to attack Burman.

It's kind of like political Tourette's, isn't it Warren sweetie darling? You just can't help yourself.

 

 

X-rated

Hmmm. According to Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act:

No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district.

So let's say that, on Monday night, the Conservatives start sweeping through the Maritime provinces or Newfoundland. Will the Blogging Tories be able to contain their glee and stick to the law before the polls close in B.C.? Will bigfoot bloggers such Andrew Coyne or web fora such as Free Dominion stifle the commentariat who might be posting results with no regard for the rules?

Just asking.

I can tell you this: I will be here monitoring the TV coverage Monday night, and blogging about it. I hope you will join me, and share your views. But I can't approve any comments that reference any results in any riding until 10 p.m. ET.

You have to wonder how Elections Canada is going to be able to monitor this.

Tory Story

This is the dumbest thing ever to come out of the election campaign. So far.

Elections Canada has been asked to investigate the Conservatives after allegations that the party is overseeing a group that operates partisan on-line web logs.

Canada's election watchdog received a complaint Tuesday morning from a disaffected party member who claims the Tories tried to sway political opinion in cyberspace in the leadup to, and during, the election by setting up the popular "Blogging Tories" website.

The site appears to be a coalition of like-minded individuals who have met in cyberspace to share their political opinions and express their frustrations with Paul Martin's Liberals.

But a Victoria, man, Eugene Parks, and Toronto Tory dissident Carole Jamieson allege the venture may be in contravention of the Elections Act and third-party financing laws. They say it may have "unduly influenced the election coverage and potentially the outcome of this campaign."

"They're using a third-party agency to get elected," said Parks, a former Conservative supporter who now says he is an opponent. "It's pure hypocrisy."

Blogging Tories is an aggregator of like-minded cons. Kind of like a virtual community bulletin board. This sort of partisan aggregator appears to be unique to the Canadian blogosphere. But it isn't the only one -- although, by my calculation, it was the first. We also have the Blogging Dippers and Liblogs -- as well as Progressive Bloggers and even Non-Partisan Bloggers.

But the Liberal war room is so clueless and so desperate, that it  issued a Fact Check on the CanWest story which, in my opinion and that of others, wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.

The Conservative Party may be in contravention of the Canada Elections Act and third-party financing laws over the "Blogging Tories" website.

On January 18, 2006 two former Conservatives, Eugene Parks and Carole Jamieson, asked the Chief Electoral Officer to investigate a potential breech of Canada's election laws by the Conservative Party of Canada.

They say that they have passed on evidence to the Chief Electoral Officer that the "Blogging Tories" website is an initiative of the Conservative party, rather than of individual Canadians.

There are strict spending limits for political parties during election campaigns.  And there are also limits on how much other groups (third parties) can spend during elections.  Under the third-party financing legislation, it is illegal for a third-party to evade election spending limits by splitting itself into two or more groups.

Stephen Harper opposes third party spending limits.  He has challenged this legislation at the Supreme Court, and has said that if elected, he will repeal the legislation that limits how much third parties - such as lobby groups - can spend during elections.

Perhaps Mr. Harper should practice what he preaches.

Needless to say, the Blogging Tories have risen to the occasion. Consider this  or this.

What I find most amusing about this tin hat conspiracy theory is that it hinges on the words of two people that have a grudge with the Conservative Party. What I don’t find amusing is that there is going to be an investigation into my right to free speech and everyone gets to pay for it. The blogsphere has been populated with so-called conservatives from the begining because of fashist progressive moonbat titheads like Carol and Eugene. I know you think the rednecks aren’t literate - but surprise!

Why would the ‘blogsphere’ be rife with conservative minded thinkers? The unbiased media does so well in portraying Conservatives as demons why would we want our voices to be heard?

Carole Jamieson can kiss my ass.

(More nasty stuff about the alleged offenders from one of their formerly own here.)

All that said, I am with Robert McClelland on this:

But this is troubling for one simple reason. The right will not learn from this. They will not, even as they’re getting their faces rubbed in their own odious tactics, reflect upon it and come to the realization that when you continuously swiftboat people, sooner or later you’re going to get swiftboated yourself.

No, the right will not learn this lesson but will instead be looking to hurl these same exact accusations against the Blogging Liberals and Blogging Dippers. Don’t believe it? They’re already laying the groundwork.

Sometimes it's like kindergarten here in bloggoland.

The Liberals are nuts to take this seriously.

 

Mouseketeers

Candidates who blog now have their online club: Confeederation.

After the fall

As I explain in today's treeware column, last week I got to musing on what would happen to the Canadian blogosphere in the event of a Conservative win, minority or majority. (I sprinkled in some bonus links.)

Four days after next Monday's federal election, Toronto's (mostly) conservative bloggers will be drinking it up at a downtown pub. Judging from the polls, it will be a celebration of victory, one in which they had no small role.

For the past few years, they've been bashing the Liberals, for everything from not saluting U.S. President George W. Bush to the income trust scandal.

Oh sure, every once in a while they would take aim at columnists and pundits whom they perceived to be liberal/Liberal, but most of their fire was aimed at the government.

So what if the Conservatives win? Will mainstream media (MSM) journos who perform their watchdog role be lined up against the virtual wall?

It's a theme that was picked up by others, notably Warren Kinsella, as I noted yesterday.

Last Friday, I posed the question both on this blog and also emailed bloggers across the political spectrum and the country.

Some, such as Jay Currie and Robert McClelland, opted to post their thoughts as comments here and/or here.

Here's part of Jay's reply, and there's more where this came from:

What is not paid much attention to in the MSM is that the CPC is at best a rickety coalition of currently silent socons, free market business and policy wonks, a smattering of confused "red tories", some serious decentralists and a garnish of libertarians. Or, more accurately, cats in a burlap sack.

If Harper wins - minority or majority - the real fight gets started. And the weapons in that fight are going to be blogs and websites.

The media will take some well ( and not so well) deserved shots; but the main bout will be the scrap over the soul of the CPC.

I can hardly wait.

And here's one of McClelland's retorts:

As for who they'd attack, I agree on the media, Antonia. Any journalist who dared to criticize a Harper government would be given the swiftboat treatment. And any journalist who was critical of a Harper government would need to beware getting caught in a Rovian Dan Rather trap. Because the conservative elite would be looking to set them all up for a fall like the Rethugs did to Dan.

But this wouldn't be the sole target of the rightwing bloggers if Harper is elected. I'd look for a renewed and more vicious assault on the Supreme Court of Canada since it would be safety check against their crazies. The socons wouldn't be able to repeal the same sex marriage legislation for instance, as long as the SCC isn't stacked with rightwing ideologues.

Beyond that and their usual targets of hatred, they'd spend a great deal of their time defending every fart that escaped Harper's body. Harper will be able to do no wrong in their eyes and they'll be feverishly working to deflect or obfuscate criticism directed against his policies.

In short, if Harper is elected the Canadian rightwing bloggers are going to act exactly like their American counterparts. So you'd best get used to being called a traitor, Antonia, if Harper wins a week from Monday.

Others emailed me back, although I did not get as high a response as I had expected. Maybe they can't handle the truth?

Anyway, one of the constraints of writing for old media is time and space. For broadcast media, the problem is the former. For print media, it's the latter. Which is why I was unable to quote ithe complete replies of those bloggers who were gracious enough to respond in time for my column deadline. (I made a few teeny edits, marked in fuschia.)

So here are their complete answers, in the order they replied:

Political Staples:

Thanks for the email.
 
I have not decided what I will do on my blog if the Conservatives win.  In a perfect world I would hold them to the same level as I do the Liberals but I am honest enough to say my bias will leak in - especially since I agree with most of the platform.  At a minimum I will be playing close attention to how well they live up to their promise of clean and accountable government.  If they stick to their key 5 and curb the growth of the federal government they can keep me happy.

I do wonder if my blog will be as interesting if I am defending a government rather than going after it.  It will be a work in progress I guess.

But it is much (better) than the alternative, eh?
 
Greg Staples

Let It Bleed:

Happy New Year!  I hope your holidays were enjoyable.

Smart-ass answer: The final goal of the VRWC (Cdn Chapter) having been
accomplished, our funding will dry up and the conservative Canadian
blogosphere will wither up and blow away.  Until the time comes to inva...
er, liberate Iran.

Real answer: I think Jay Currie is partly correct, but it's a little more
complex than he lets on.  Assuming the CPC wins (still a big "if", at this
point) the first few months will see something akin to drunken euphoria
amongst conservatives.  What happens after that will be a function of two
things: whether it's a majority or minority government and how badly the
Liberals do (in terms of seat count).  If it's a majority and the Liberals
are trounced, then the "coalition" that comprises the CPC will splinter, and
online pundits will start sniping at the party and each other, feeling
liberated to do so because there is little danger of the Liberals staging an
immediate comeback.  If it's a majority and the Liberals still place
strongly, the coalition will likely still splinter, but not as quickly and
not as deeply.  In a minority situation, I think the dynamic will remain the
same as prior to and during the election: guns trained on the media and the
Liberals (the NDP, being seen as a bulwark against the Liberals owning the
entire centrist/left field, will continue to get mostly a pass).

Both real name and blog name are fine.

Best regards,

Bob

Canadian Cynic

i'm not sure i'll be answering your question exactly, but it would be interesting to see how the wankersphere would be promoting the idea of harper (and canada) getting far more friendly with the bush administration.

would they be pushing the idea of the missile defense program again?  would they be all for backing off protecting canada's sovereignty in the far north?  would they encourage the idea of starting to sell canada's water to the U.S.?  would they think the idea of canada starting to accommodate the U.S. no-fly list was just a peachy idea?  would they be forgiving about trying to get back that $5 billion in softwood duties?  would they be getting all excited about sending canadian troops to iraq?

i mean, it's clear that the canadian wingnuts really don't care for anything remotely resembling anti-americanism.

so one can only imagine that they're going to be all gung-ho about integrating canada even more tightly into the U.S.

i'll have to think on this some more.

CC

Calgary Grit, in two separate emails

The more moderate Tory bloggers like Bound by Gravity will stay fairly
balanced and supportive of Harper I think. But I really believe that the
fanatical blogging Tories will turn en mass against Harper. Harper is going
to govern like Mulroney and we all remember that the Reform Party was a
protest movement against Mulroney. Ergo, the old Reformers are going to
feel that Harper has "sold out" to Ontario and Quebec, abandoning his reform
roots.

If Harper has a minority, then his excuse will be that he needs to
compromise to maintain power and their criticism will be muted. But if he
wins a majority, it won't take long before the complaints begin.

Bart Ramson

(and)

It'll be interesting to see (how) they react without the Liberals to kick around. I know I've taken a few shots at PMPM myself so I'm kind of looking forward to being able to go after Harper a bit more once he governs and starts messing up.

Meantime, Phantom Observer Victor Wong whose comment I picked up from my blog and quoted in the column, today writes:

From Zerb’s selections, you might be tempted to think that political bloggers are punch-drunk pundit brawlers spoiling for a good political fight. I for one believe we’re a lot more sophisticated than that.

For example, Bob the Blogger seems to think that conservative bloggers are going to try to complete the revolution by targeting the five provincial non-conservative governments for replacement. I seriously doubt that the Blogging Tories are that single-minded of purpose.

And Bob the Bleeder believes there’ll be sniping and snarling within the blogging ranks depending on how strong the Conservative win (and corresponding Liberal loss) actually is. Certain some behaviour like that will happen, but then it always happens. There will always be people who are critical of government no matter who’s in power, and there will always be true believers unwilling to compromise in a goal to put policy in place.  It’s the normal give-and-take of politics.

I still think the media will take the brunt of the attacks, and we'll see something happen here akin to what has transpired in the U.S. where the blogosphere has had a chilling effect on many mainstream types.

Being a watchdog is one thing. Being an attack dog is another.

Be a blogger for a day!

This photo from CBC's Royal Canadian Air Farce (click to enlarge) came my way and I just couldn't resist. Not that I find RCAF all that funny. Its humour appeals more to my Mom and her friends than to me.

But given how, as I noted last week, the Broadcasting Consortium which controls the Leaders' Debates (and barred the Greens from participating) agreed to party demands not to release clips to satire shows, I thought, what the hell? Let's have some fun. Besides, this place could use some colour.

Trouble is, I'm all debated out. All I can think of is saying ''Orangemen,'' for the real leaders' awful make-up jobs Monday night. So I leave it to you, dear reader, to think up the punchline for this one. Please, fire away!

For inspiration, check out what this young Edmonton blogger has to say in his spoof of the Monday night brawl in Montreal. 

(Moderator Steve) Paikin: That's quite enough of that. Mr. Martin, many campaigns, yours included, have made use of personal attacks this election, with one member of your team going so far as to allege that Stephen Harper killed three nuns. Are such attacks productive?

Paul Martin: I would like to take this opportunity to completely ignore your question, and to focus instead on my favourite platitude, the importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You see, the Charter is important. That's why if I get to keep being Prime Minister, I, as a staunch advocate of preserving the strong centre of the Canadian federation, will seek a constitutional amendment that will strip the federal government of a power that the provinces will retain. What do you think of that? Huh?

Stephen Harper: Hold on, it doesn't appear to be in my script.

Okay, so what do you expect from a 23 year old who listens to Steve Miller and Simon & Garfunkel? The kid is probably under the influence.

RCAF airs tonight at 8, and repeats Monday at 7.

 

While the cat's away

If you want to see how Harper's followers are following this debate, check out the comments over on Andrew Coyne's blog. He's left them unsupervised for the evening.

Debating Points

What good is sitting alone in your room watching tonight's Leaders' Debate: The Maul in Montreal just shouting at the TV?

Shout at me or other readers right here starting at 8 when I foolishly multi-task and attempt to live blog the bout as fast as I can type and this Windows 2000-enabled PC the Star provided me can handle it. (Last time I did it on my XP-powered laptop.)

Just like last month -- see here and here and here and here and oh you get the point --  your comments are welcome. Please note that all comments must be approved (although I have rarely deleted any). That means that, if you don't see your comment appear right away, it's because I haven't read it yet. So please do not repeatedly hit the ''post'' button.

Hope you can join me. It's an intense two hours and your contributions make it all the funner.

CONspirazoid

Now that I have stopped sniffing Buckley's Mixture fumes and popping extra-strength Sudafeds, I can focus on the screen and begin some light blogging again. Apologies for being somewhat AWOL these past few days  ...

The blogosphere has been burning up over that ''Entitlements'' ad that the Conservatives launched this week.  What's been amusing about the blogobabble is how many Conservative supporters think the ad, which shows Prime Minister Paul Martin saying ''the Liberal Party is not corrupt'' over and over again, blows. What's more, until the ad actually appeared on the party's website, some supporters actually thought that it not a Conservative ad at all, but some sort of re-edited version of an other Tory ad from last month. For example, here's the National Post's Andrew Coyne, who recently resurrected his popular blog (I fixed the ad link to make it work):

Liberal blogger Nottawa claims to have got hold of a new Tory ad, showing ordinary Canadians shaking their heads at the latest revelations of Liberal perfidy. Also featured: Paul Martin ("the party is not corrupt"), Judge Gomery ("culture of entitlement ... elaborate kickback scheme"), and, in an engaging cameo, Dave Dingwall ("I'm entitled to my entitlements!").

Could be real, could be a hoax: several of the shots seem to have been borrowed from a previous Tory ad ("Change.") It's odd that the Tories would not have posted it on their site, odder still that a former PMO staffer and Liberal war-room veteran would be able to get his hands on it.

For a while there, Coyne and many members of his commentariat were very skeptical that the Harper herd would stoop to such a cheesy and sleazy ad. Here's one example:

That is the fakest, dorkiest thing ever to come across the internet. This is clearly a homemade forgery. It's not on the CPC website where all of their other ads are proudly displayed.

(Of course, the original batch of Tory 'interview' ads didn't look much higher quality . . .)

Lots of debate -- some of it somewhat whacko -- over the ad at the Liberal-leaning Nottawa and Cherniak on Politics.

The ad is generating some MSM attention as well. In today's Globe and Mail, Christopher Dornan, director of the Carleton University School of Journalism, destroys it on factual grounds. Questioning the use of an old front page of the paper as a prop, he writes

Perfect though the front page in question may be for the Tories, it is nonetheless not quite the smoking gun it first appears. The headline dates from May 10, 2005, when testimony before the Gomery inquiry was in full swing. It refers to allegations by Benoît Corbeil, former Liberal Party director-general in Quebec, that he gave campaign funds to eight party officials during the 2000 federal election. The money supposedly came from a secret $50,000 donation to the party from Jean Brault, an ad executive who admitted kicking back sponsorship funds to the Liberals. Some of the party officials who allegedly received the money were, by 2005, employed by Martin cabinet ministers. This is at best a rickety scaffold on which to tar "Martin Liberals" with deliberate corruption.

All well and good but the main trouble with the ad in my view is that it paints Canadians as flannel shirt-wearing yokels who watch TV in greasy spoon diners when everybody knows they would rather have a double-double at Tim's.