I have just read one of the better takes on the Wildrose Alliance leadership race over on Manganic's blog. 

In it, my buddy Mang presents some important information that could be very useful for those WAP members who are still unsure where to park their vote.

It should be considered required reading for all party members before October 17th.

* Great lead-in, btw: "I received a phone call from the Mark Dyrholm campaign today. I didn't waste much time, I just politely told the caller I was firmly behind Danielle Smith. He said, "oh, so you're supporting the libertarian then?" I simply said, "yes," and left it at that.

At least they aren't calling her a Liberal any more..."
 
 
Check it out here: http://blog.manganic.com/2009/09/deconstructing-dyrholm-campaign.html

It boils down to a case of the unexpected followed by the expected.

When Canada made international headlines by walking out of the auditorium just prior to a speech by Iran’s loony leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, many of my fellow Canucks were surprised.

The fact that we were informed of this decision ahead of time didn’t detract from the experience. If anything, it added a certain ‘are they really going to do it?’ angle.

Sure enough, during the all-important first day of the U.N. General Assembly’s annual debate, right before Crazy A-Jad launched the latest in a troubling list of Gong Show speeches which have become something of a habit in recent years, the Canadian delegation led by Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon got up from their seats and, in a very obvious and public statement of protest, walked out.

A handful of other nations followed the lead and joined Canada in our symbolic protest by making their exit, but it was Canada that led the way.

It caused a weird and unfamiliar feeling – pride. That was the sensation of standing up for what is right. It was the touch of fortitude and courage to stand against what is most definitely wrong on the international stage. It was the feeling of growing a pair.

Naturally, the mini-backlash by the Canadian left is the expected. The attacks against Prime Minister Stephen Harper from our resident pseudo-intellectual latte sippers are the usual laundry list of the tired and the old.

“He’s grandstanding.”

“Harper is too pro-Israel.”

“Harper is too pro-American.”

“It will destroy our reputation of being ‘nice’ and ‘peace-keepers’”

“It’s disrespectful to the United Nations.” (apparently a speech about human rights given by a murderous dictator is completely respectful to the U.N.)

“Harper is against diplomacy.”

Years of embarrassing episodes on the world stage included everything from the comical like sending our troops into a desert war with green fatigues (after having to hitchhike a ride over on U.S. aircraft) to the downright inexcusable action – or inaction, actually - by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien after 9/11.

The milquetoast, Spock-like speech did nothing to take the focus away from the fact it took so long for the P.M. to finally make a statement.

But now we have a P.M. in Stephen Harper, who is the leader of a minority Conservative government. One wonders if his confidence is growing, being in the position where the constant threat of a non-confidence vote is becoming less and less of a threat, not because of an unwilling opposition but because of rising poll numbers.

Many believe that an election now would hand Harper the majority he has been looking for. Moves such as the one at the U.N. are the actions of a leader in control and knows it.

He is showing his intentions of using some of that positive Canadian image everyone talks about and giving it a voice. Cash in some of that politeness for some influence.

The left will continue to complain, if for no other reason than he’s Stephen Harper. My question to them is this: if they really believe in human rights and equality, why are they not protesting against one of the world’s biggest offenders – Iran?

If we are as well-respected on the global scene by all nations as the left suggests, then those nations should respect our decision not to encourage or give legitimacy to a dangerous rogue state and its unstable, anti-Semitic leader.

Interesting editorial in today’s Calgary Herald by Wildrose Alliance leadership candidate Mark Dyrholm.  It is a response to a September 22nd article about fellow candidate Danielle Smith.

Apparently, Dyrholm felt that the article contained misinformation regarding his experience. So he did what he should have, and contacted the Herald.

Now, there are ways of doing things such as this. I’m not sure Dyrholm’s approach of rattling off his entire resume was the most effective method.

The fact that Dyrholm played the victim in his allegation that the media was Danielle Smith’s ‘…campaign team…’, and further that it isn’t the first time for his campaign to act in such a manner, tends to strip away some of the qualities that lend themselves to a good leader, in my opinion.

It just felt kind of…whiney.

Click here to read Dyrholm’s editorial.

We’re getting down to the end of the race. Both the Danielle Smith and Mark Dyrholm camps are hard at it, each in their own way doing all they can to get out their candidate’s message.

There have been shots taken by supporters of both campaigns. The Dyrholm camp, for example, is trying hard to paint Smith as ‘too far left’ (isn’t that the same scary, purposely misleading smear the P.C.’s used on Jim Dinning? How’d that strategy work out for that party?).

Smith supporters on the other hand are finding it difficult to attack Dyrholm simply due to the lack of sound bites. They seem to be mostly of his Don’t-call-him-the-real-campaign-manager Craig Chandler. (Fine, maybe it’s not so difficult after all.)

The point that follows is not intended to be one of those ‘shots’. It is, however, one of my top reasons why I believe Danielle Smith must become the next leader of the Wildrose Alliance.

Simply put, if she does not win, the momentum created by both the recent by-election victory and increased media attention Smith’s candidacy has brought to the party could very well fizzle out.

Vastly superior public speaking abilities, her political leanings which are far more in line with the majority of Albertans, her devotion to fiscal conservatism, her belief in small government – even the staunchest Mark Dyrholm supporter (perhaps under the influence of truth serum) must admit that Danielle Smith would put the WAP in the best starting position in a battle with Stelmach.

Mark Dyrholm campaigns to bring ‘Reform’ to the Alberta political landscape. That in itself makes me wonder if he is incapable of developing his own ideas and policies, but that issue is for another day.

In an ironic way, a Dyrholm-led Wildrose Alliance would share one similarity to the old federal Reformers. (I’m not suggesting that they would end up having to join the P.C.s in order to form a government like the real Reform party did.)

As unfortunate as it is, the party would be dogged with the ‘far-right’ label from day one of his leadership. Mainstream, everyday Albertans – the very ones who would find Danielle Smith appealing enough (I am referring to her policies and personality. I’ll leave the comments about her appearance to others) to possibly give the Wildrose their vote – will see Dyrholm, and by extension the WAP as a whole, as ‘too religious’.

The attempt to paint Smith as 'liberal' by bringing up social issues such as abortion has only resulted in  Dyrholm running the risk of making himself look too far 'right' in the minds of the average Albertan, most of whom do not consider that to be an issue of priority.

As more than a few Albertans have told me, “If we wanted the Socreds back, we’d vote for them.”

The Wildrose Alliance would be considered a ‘fringe’ party in the minds of too many non-partisan Alberta voters. We would lose the growing momentum we are experiencing, even our golden opportunity to another opposition party, and could be forced to endure another term of Stelmach rule.

As those who are following the leadership battle for the Wildrose Alliance are aware, the race is now down to two. What is not so clear, however, is exactly who those two are.

One candidate is certain: Danielle Smith. Many in the know are already referring to her as the ‘leader-in-waiting’ for the obvious reason that she is the most electable due primarily for her policies and broad appeal to a cross-section of Albertans.

As for the other candidate, that is not so clear.

Mark Dyrholm is by all accounts an honest and worthy candidate. There is no doubt about his passion for politics, and after watching first-hand his performance at the Edmonton debate last week, the impression I was left with is that he truly does hold the courage of his convictions.

As I stated in a previous article, even thought I do not share his overly social conservative views, he would make a valuable MLA, but certainly not as leader. I stand by that statement.

But something quite telling has emerged, a pattern that could be cause for alarm for those who consider themselves Mark Dyrholm supporters.

When it comes to public and media appearances, a glaring difference between the two camps becomes obvious. While the Danielle Smith campaign spokesperson tends to be Danielle herself, the Dyrholm camp is increasingly represented by someone other than Mark Dyrholm.

In fact, it is becoming quite difficult to discern who the candidate competing against Smith is: Mark Dyrholm or his campaign’s so-called ‘Strategy-Coalition Outreach’ representative Craig Chandler.

Be it a radio interview or a newspaper article, those who aren’t following the leadership race closely would be forgiven if they assumed that Chandler himself was running.

Perhaps it could be argued that a campaign manager sometimes takes up the slack and fills in as the public voice for the candidate on occasion, but not in this case as Chandler is not listed in that capacity.

One could even question the title he does have, given his recent public statements and tactics. While his methods certainly are known in the provincial political world, I find it quite ironic that someone who holds the title of ‘Coalition Outreach’ would make what some could consider borderline sexist remarks about Danielle Smith on The Michael Coren Show, intimating that some Wildrose Alliance members are shallow enough to actually vote for Smith because she is ‘attractive.’

Not only is that disrespectful to Smith, it amounts to questioning the integrity of a large number of party members. Maybe it’s just me, but alienating hundreds of fellow party members is not exactly my idea of effective ‘outreach’.

The leadership race so far has seen the Danielle Smith camp focusing on the issues. She has stayed on message, expressing not only her policies but those of the party. The only attacks from her camp have been directed at the true opposition for the party – the Progressive Conservatives.

Conversely, the Dyrholm camp has continually placed Danielle Smith in the crosshairs, never failing to lower the bar with each swipe.  As one email I received stated: how unpopular are Dyrholm's policies that they need to try to deflect attention away from them and onto Smith?

This leads to a few important questions:

• What will the lasting effects of this kind of mudslinging do to party unity?
  
• Will Chandler and his people stay committed to the Wildrose Alliance under Smith’s leadership?
  
• In a Dyrholm-led WAP, can we expect more of this bottom-feeding electoral strategy in a provincial election?
  
• And perhaps most importantly, if Mark Dyrholm does win, exactly how much influence will Craig Chandler have in the party overall?
  

Given what we’ve seen so far, party members have a right to know the answers.

When I announced my public endorsement of Danielle Smith for leader of the Wildrose Alliance way back in July, more than one person questioned the brevity in which I made my decision.
Even Danielle herself mentioned this over a coffee one afternoon: “…I was kind of surprised because it was so quick, so early in the race…”

What can I say? Smith is a fiscally-conservative moderate who is, in my mind, the best choice and best chance for leader, by a country mile. For me, the choice was clear from the beginning and, never being one to hesitate when it comes to saying what’s on my mind, the endorsement was out there.

It has been very interesting to read the opinions of other pundits since that occurred. What has become apparent is the importance and influence of the battlefront in election campaigns called New Media. Blog articles, online magazines, online political forums, Facebook, Twitter, hub sites dedicated to specific candidates or issues, etc. - they’re all part of it.

What is even more apparent is the fact that, in the case of this leadership race, Danielle Smith is winning the battle. Spend time on some of the party member’s favorite online haunts like nohippos.com or projectalberta.com, and you’ll get a distinct sense that the tide is in Smith’s favor.

Yet another blogger pundit, Manganic (http://manganic.blogspot.com/), has made public his support for Danielle Smith.

The reasons for his decision were very similar to my own. Mang, a self-professed social conservative, explained his choice of Smith over social conservative candidate Mark Dyrholm:

“What I find I like about Danielle is her pro-business, pro-freedom approach to policy. She may or may not be a socon, but by and large that doesn't matter to me. On the other hand, Dyrholm seems to wear being a socon on his sleeve. (He’s) very in-your-face about it.”

 

One of the main points I have made both in previous articles and in forum discussions is my belief that Smith gives the Wildrose Alliance the best shot at success against the formidable Progressive Conservative monolith. It is a point of view Mang shares:

“…For me, it boils down to elect-ability. Who do I believe mainstream Albertans are more likely to relate to and vote for - Mark Dyrholm, or Danielle Smith? The answer is obvious - Danielle Smith.”

Manganic’s endorsement represents but one of a growing number of party members well-versed in New Media, who are voicing their support for Danielle Smith. One believes he won’t be the last.

At the end of the Calgary debate, candidate Jeff Willerton announced that his run at the leadership of the Wildrose Alliance had come to an end, and that he was throwing his miniscule support behind social conservative candidate Mark Dyrholm.

While another blog makes a good case that this has the appearance of a set-up, if turns out to be part of a staged stategy, then it would have no other option than to be considered a flop.  Willerton never did get his campaign off the ground, cemented in the third place position from the beginning. 

(For the life of me, I again can't help but recognize the handwriting that is all over this...)

Point blank, Willerton was comic relief at the debates, but never a serious contender.

No matter the real reason for Willerton's decision to quit, the result will be disappointing to the Dyrholm campaign, who will not see a significant rise in supporters - Jeff Willerton simply didn't have many to give.

Whether a planned gimmick or a genuine decision by Willerton, the media attention being given to Danielle Smith and the kudos she is already receiving for another fine debate performance has quickly reduced the Willerton move to a campaign news afterthought.

A big thank you to Manganic for posting his live blog updates from tonights Wildrose Alliance leadership debate from Calgary on The Moderate Separatist.

Check out his blog here: http://manganic.blogspot.com/

The Mark Dyrholm cheering section

Mark is very in-your-face.

Dianne is much lower key.

One will be successful.

Battery in phone dying. Go figure. I'll Blog as long as I can.

Danielle just made reference to new media. Including blogging.

Kinda cool given I'm liveblogging right now.

Lots going on. Difficult to follow.

Smith and Dyrholm are clearly the ones making the best impression.

Willarton is a nice guy but I don't think he has leadership potential.

I'm just sayin'

Dyrholm: reform policy is my policy
Smith: built on Dyrholm
Willarton: I don't know what you're talking about.

First question was about the number of MLAs. Do we reduce them?

Willarton: yes. 52
Dyrholm: yes. 48
Smith: Maybe. Perhaps a province senate?

Mark Dyrholm now. He is also going after Eddie. Poor leadership
Having a go about leadership. Hmmm
Strong candidate. Good guy.
I will be voting for either Danielle or Mark.

"I promise to hold a province-wide referendum on separation every time a Federal Liberal Government is elected in Ottawa."
Ummm... The WAP voted not to push separation didn't they?

Second to speak is Jeff Willarton. He's attacking PC tax-and-spend Liberalism. Not bad but isn't engaging. Soft spoken and lecturing.
Polite and to the point.

Danielle Smith speaks
to a full house.

Mang here. Forwarding my liveblog to Leigh's Blog.

Parking lot full to overflowing. This is a good sign.

The afterglow is beginning to fade, but the impact of the Calgary-Glenmore by-election most certainly continues to be felt.

Alberta’s major media outlets have all reported on the victory by Paul Hinman and his Wildrose Alliance party, using terms such as ‘upset’, ‘unexpected’ and ‘astonishing’ to describe the sudden end of 40 consecutive years of Progressive Conservative representation in the constituency.

To a degree, they have a point. However, it is the reaction from everyone from P.C. party members to new media pundits to Premier Ed Stelmach himself that paints quite a picture, and puts into focus how the message behind the results has been missed.

Proving that he didn’t quite receive or understand the meaning of the message, Unsteady Eddie’s response, publicly anyhow, was a ‘recommitment to fiscal conservatism’.

Considering the Stelmach government’s spending habits have effectively undone the work – and indeed, belittled the great sacrifices – Albertans made in the 1990’s, this comes off as nothing more than a sound-bite from a stunned leader. It is an issue to be sure, but as has become all too familiar, Stelmach hit the forest but missed the tree.

The truth is the P.C. government’s penchant for spending like Liberals was but one issue of many in the minds of the voters. The botched Royalty scheme that effectively suffocated investment in our energy sector, the fumbling of our health care system (another reported 300+ beds cut), the obvious lack of direction of the government overall, - these are but a few in a laundry list of concerns Albertans have with the current regime.

Meanwhile, some pundits are quick to write off the results as a common by-election ‘protest vote’. Yes, many voters who checked the box next to Paul Hinman’s name on the ballot are disenfranchised Tory supporters – that much is obvious. However, circumstances are much different than is the case in historical protest situations.

A 40% turnout for the by-election puts it in range of the turnout for a general election, which is rare. The fact that many traditional P.C. supporters have switched to the Wildrose Alliance cannot be discounted. Perhaps most telling of all is the common feeling that they haven’t left the P.C. party at all, but that Ed Stelmach’s Progressive Conservatives have left them.

It is also important to remember that, historically speaking, Alberta governments rule for long periods of time, then are swept aside en masse. Given the caliber of members and executives in the Wildrose Alliance, and their policies that are traditionally in-step with Albertans, one gets the unarguable sense that if history is going to repeat and we are going to see the end of decades of Progressive Conservative rule in Alberta, this group of fiscally-conservative – socially responsible folks could very well be the ones to bring the winds of change.

Now all the party needs is the right leader…

The idea was to 'Send Ed a Message'.  Well, the voters of Calgary-Glenmore have done just that. 

Not only did they elect Wildrose Alliance candidate Paul Hinman as their new M.L.A., they did so in stunning fashion by handing odds-on favorite Diane Colley-Urquhart of the ruling Progressive Conservatives an embarrasing third-place finish.

Colley-Urquhart, whose campaign was seemingly prone to self-inflicted public relations gaffes and a potential anti-Stelmach backlash, finished a distant third behind Hinman and Liberal candidate Avalon Roberts.

While Hinman deserves congratulations, it is his campaign team that is due some major kudos.  As organized and enthusiastic a team as there ever has been, these volunteers put their incredible efforts into a perceived long-shot for success and made the unthinkable happen.

If this is an indication of how committed Wildrose Alliance members are at working towards success, this could be but a mere foreshadowing of the next Alberta provincial election.

Paul Hinman is back where he belongs - indeed, where the Wildrose Alliance belongs - in the Alberta Legislature.

The message was most certainly sent tonight, a loud and clear one that should be of concern for Premier Ed Stelmach and his tired and stale P.C. government.

Unofficial results: http://results.elections.ab.ca/12.htm

A gentle reminder to the citizens of Calgary-Glenmore:

Live feed via FoxNews of the March on Washington.  (I don't know how long this link will be up.)

FoxNews Live Stream - Tea Party in Washington, D.C.

The Wildrose Alliance Leadership Debate Tour ’09 rolled through Edmonton last night. First off, I was incredibly impressed by the number of people who came to see the three candidates have their say.

The attendees were a good mix of members and those not affiliated, but most certainly interested in the Wildrose Alliance and the possible leaders. It was a clear example of a party in action, as opposed to the years of party inaction I had witnessed as a member of the Progressive Conservatives.

The debate was, for the most part, on a respectful level which was constructed to allow each candidate a good opportunity to get their message out. Kudos to the organizers and to the candidates for staging an effective and important aspect of the democratic process.

How the candidates fared:

Jeff Willerton is the agreed dark horse in this race. While he started off by admitting to being uncomfortable with public speaking, his humour came through and put the crowd and, indeed himself, at ease as he went on. Unfortunately, he was not up to speed on many of the issues raised, and he seemed lost on subjects other than his self-proclaimed battle with ‘successive liberal P.C. governments in Alberta’, and began to sound like he was more interested in promoting his self-published book than becoming leader of a political party.

Willerton seems genuine, and is probably a guy I could easily have a chat about politics over a tall, cool one. But is he the one to lead the charge against the Stelmach P.C.s? No.

Next is Mark Dyrholm, who is passionate and determined to become the next leader of the party. However, many of his policies/promises seemed self-based, not party-based. Constantly he left the impression that he would put the ‘I’ before the team. It was telling that he had to all but be reminded that the WAP is a grassroots party.

Knowledgeable and well-read on the issues, Dyrholm convinced me that he was the right man for the job - but not this job. He will make an effective and valuable M.L.A. for the party. The downside to his presentation was that he made it sound like he wanted to transform the Wildrose Alliance into the Reform Party Jr. In fact, his entire campaign strategy seems to focus on bringing the ghost of Reform – the now-dead political entity – to the province.

Overall, his speech was positive, only slipping into attack-mode on one or two occasions with Danielle Smith as the target. Odd, but when he tried this tactic, I saw his lips move but the voice was of his ‘Strategy/Coalition Outreach’ manager. It seemed out of place and, judging by the reaction of some of those in the crowd close to me, failed.

Danielle Smith was the most polished, by far. Her strengths in areas of the economy and property rights were clear to see, as was her intention at putting together an effective team to lead.

Smiling off the few feeble attacks by Dyrholm, her speech was effectively structured and followed along party policy. She handled potentially sticky issues such as her pro-choice, pro-de-funding stance with honesty and integrity, and as opposed to Dyrholm, answered questions from a party point of view instead of promising to change the world from the top.

As the gentleman seated next to me stated, this race has less to do with social issues and more to do with turning this province around. On that basis, he – a self-professed social conservative – said that he will be voting for Smith.

Clearly the best public speaker of the three, Danielle Smith proved once again that she would be the best choice not only as leader of the Wildrose Alliance, but that her leadership would give the upstart party its best shot at uprooting the stale P.C. government.

UPDATE: Email received this evening with additional information regarding the debate. Special thanks to Link Byfield for the numbers and for permitting me to post.


"I heard from someone the count was 285 -- might be a bit high, but maybe not. The 200 chairs were all full, and there were lots of us standing around the edges and in the empty adjoining room the hotel opened up for us. Lots of media and several professional pundits as well.

It was nice to meet you, Leigh. My observations were much like yours. I think Mark should stop jabbing at Danielle -- he captures the crowd better when he talks about what he believes in. It was a serious fun night of a sort I haven't seen since Preston's heigh-day."

Link Byfield

8th anniversary of 9/11.
A different perspective.
'Rescue Me' minisode titled 'Juiced'

I was going to write another article about the sad politically-correct world we live in, but I think this says it all.

My favorite show on television is 'Rescue Me' which centers around the lives of a crew of FDNY firefighters. Brilliant, hard-hitting, and funny, it is by far the best show on the tube today in my opinion. (My wife says it's 'scary' how much Denis Leary and his troubled character Tommy Gavin reminds her of me, personality-wise. I blame it on the shared Irish heritage...)

I've put one of my favorite scenes from an episode that aired a few season's back as the Video of the Month. (see the right side of the page)

Be advised: the subject it is VERY politically-incorrect and the language is real-world raw. The message is bang-on. No wonder I like the show.


YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaAtJrevW8s
FX network (U.S.): http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/rescueme/
Showcase (Canada): http://www.showcase.ca/shows/showspage.aspx?root_title_id=83476

Another day, another Diane Colley-Urquhart fumble.

Today the Progressive Conservative candidate in the Calgary-Glenmore by-election announced her decision not to step down from her position as Calgary city Councillor while she runs for a provincial seat as an MLA.

Hedging her bets, she effectively reversed her earlier statement that she would take a leave of absence once the by-election was called. Now that it has been, Colley-Urquhart has done an about-face and has now decided that she will hang on to one job while she tries her luck at grabbing another.

In true P.C. fashion, she has yet to feel the need to explain her decision.

This is just the latest in a list of self-inflicted and controversial decisions. Before throwing her hat in the ring, Colley-Urquhart resigned from her position as a decision-maker for the much detested Human Rights Commission. A few weeks back, she again made waves with a statement on her website in which she proclaimed admiration for the leftwing thinktank, the Pembina Institute.

More eyebrows were raised when she mused that the province should perhaps look at reinstituting the recently eliminated Alberta Health Care premium program (read: tax), putting her at odds with her boss and forcing Premier Ed Stelmach to publicly slap-down the suggestion.

All this leads one to wonder: if Diane Colley-Urquhart is confident in her own abilities, in her campaign team, and indeed in her chances to win the contested seat, why doesn't she do what is right and prove it to the people of Calgary-Glenmore by resigning from City Council?

While the about-face can be considered typical from the ruling P.C. government, it leads one to wonder how much faith the voters can place in her, and how much weight constituents can put on her promises.

Michael Ignatieff has just announce that his Liberals will try to bring down the minority Conservative government at the first opportunity. Not only do Canadians not wish to have yet another election, but this could seriously delay the Canada's economic recovery.

Tell Ignatieff NO!

email:IgnatM@parl.gc.ca or ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca

telephone: (416) 251-5510

fax: (416) 251-2845

Dear Michael,

First of all, I am not going to refer to you as ‘Iggy’. Here in Alberta there is only one ‘Iggy’ who stands for leadership, strength, and fortitude, and you, my friend, are not him.

To the meat of the matter: I understand you are having quite the debate out there in Sudbury. The primary issue you and your Liberal caucus are contemplating – whether or not to pull the trigger on yet another federal election by bringing down the minority Conservative government with the help of your Bloc Quebecois and NDP allies – must be a tough one.

On one hand, you have the half of your party who sees common sense and considers it a bad move. The public has made it clear that they have no appetite for yet another election, what with it being so soon after the last two. Not to mention the cost. They know that even in your best-case scenario, you would end up with nothing more than a minority government of your own. It would be an exercise in futility, and would possibly delay the slow economic recovery that the Harper government has started. It could do more harm than good.

Really, the public has bought into the Conservative spin that claims you are ‘just visiting’. After decades away from Canada, only to return and assume that you have the capability and tools to lead this nation, what else would we think?

On the other hand, you seem to lead the half of your Liberal gang who is becoming more and more hawkish on the subject with each passing day. You pour more fuel on the fire of speculation, each sound bite suggesting that you are planning to send us all to the polls once again, even in the absence of any innovative policies or prominent issues to run on.

This group of Liberals fear that the more you threaten to force an election then back down, the lower your credibility will fall. They are beginning to see you as Stephane Dion with a Herman Munster-esque profile. They want you to either put up or shut up. Really, who can blame them?

Your numbers are sliding. The post-leadership bump is now all but gone, and in time so will the Liberal’s overwhelming majority in the Senate. Your party has done all it can to avoid/delay the democratically-inspired will of the people by road-blocking Senate reform that includes elections, forcing the Prime Minister to hold his nose and appoint new members. But you can’t stop everything, and by the end of this year the P.M. will fill even more vacant seats in the Upper Chamber with Conservatives. Reason enough for your Liberals to attempt a power grab, I suppose.

The fact that the recession is beginning to reverse, albeit slowly, also must qualify. After all, if Harper still occupies the Big Chair when our economy starts moving in a positive direction, it will be even more difficult to sway the voters.

Well Michael, count me as one Canadian who proudly stands up and supports your side. I think you should go for it, and quickly! It won’t be a problem to get that so-called Coalition back together. Taliban Jack is always good for a go, and the Bloc certainly has nothing to lose. Hell, we could be marking our ‘X’ even before we find ourselves in the heart of the upcoming Canadian winter.

And just like you, I look forward to the results with baited breath. I doubt we expect the same result, however. With the Harper government devoid of any scandals, the willingness of Canadians to give the Conservatives a longer go at handling the economic recovery, not to mention the potential return of all those annoying television ads, I foresee a backlash that could end up delivering a majority Conservative victory, either out of spite or just to ensure we don’t have to go through this again for several years.

Your hobby of playing Canadian politics would be over, and you would be free to return to your self-described ‘home’ – the United States.

Just visiting, indeed.