The Shotgun Blog
« "Pro-life if necessary... | Main | Reminder: Al & Mike Show with Marc Emery »
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Deconstructing Kinsella
Just recently, in fact, he posted on his blog ten reasons why people should not count Liberal leader Stephan Dion out.
Here they are, with my commentary on his commentary in italics:
1. After many months of crappy headlines and no shortage of bad luck, the polls reveal that Dion's Liberals and Harper's Tories are still... tied, mostly. It's a fair question to ask: if all of Dion's critics are right, then why is Dion still competitive? Because voters - particularly female voters - still have a lot of a reluctance about penciling an "X" beside the Conservative candidates' name. In politics, it's always good to be underestimated by your opponent. The polls say [the Tory] team is underestimating Dion. Big time.
Kinsella is right here. The polls do show the Tories and Liberals are neck and neck. But this says more about Prime Minister Harper than it does about Dion. Harper can't put Dion away for one simple reason: He isn't being true to himself. Rather than offering Canadians a true conservative alternative to Dion, Harper is offering competent but wishy-washy government. That's not the way to inspire voters.
2. The Liberal Party of Canada is the most successful political machine in Western democracy. Its brand and its organizational strength are formidable. In a country that is still Liberally-inclined, it is always foolhardy to count the Grits out.
Can't argue with Kinsella on this point either. The Liberal brand is still strong and the party has deep roots. That's why if the Liberals do win the next election it will be despite Dion, not because of him.
3. Dion is no dummy. He knows the Tories want to run a campaign about "leadership" - they've been telegraphing that for months. So Dion need only do what Chrétien did in similar circumstances in 1993: step back a bit and emphasize plan and team. And he's got a Hell of team: Hall-Finlay, Rae, Dryden, Ignatieff, Kennedy, and so many others. It is a powerful front bench, one with a lot of name recognition. Can the Tories say the same thing?
Yes Rae, Dryden, Ignatieff and the others do represent a "powerful front bench." But the only reason they are standing behind Dion is so they can stick a knife in his back.
4. The Tories have a message deficit. They can't run an "outsider" campaign - they're the incumbents. They can't run a "scandal" campaign, thanks to Mr. Mulroney. So they will run a campaign about "leadership" - but leadership is an exceedingly woolly concept. Voters like meat and potatoes platforms (which is why Harper won in 2006, by the way). If I were Dion, I'd do a campaign on government services - making 'em better, and not just eliminating them, the way Tories always do. Mix in some environment, some fiscal federalism, and voilà!
American political consultant Dick Morris likes to say elections are narratives. And if the Tories can successfully make the next federal election a narrative about leadership they will win. Voters don't like wimps running their country; I don't care how many meat and potatoes they have in their platform.
5. The campaign matters; campaigns always matter. With the parties effectively tied, the Grits need only run a tough, disciplined, focused campaign. Unlike the pre-writ, the two main parties will have the same amount to spend, so the Tories have no particular advantage there. Campaigns, you see, are great big job interviews. Here’s the Grit interview pitch: “Hi, I’m [Stéphane, Martha, Michael, Bob, Gerard, whomever]. We’ve got a great team and a great plan – to protect the environment, to improve government services, and to get us through tough economic times. The other guys don’t have a team, and they don’t have a plan.”
Campaigns do matter. And that's good news for the Tories. Prime Minister Harper is a tough, smart, battle-tested leader who, all things being equal, should make mincemeat out of Dion on the campaign trail. Will anybody even understand Dion during the English language debates?
6. Mark my words: Jim Flaherty’s anti-Dalton McGuinty campaign will go down in the political history books as one of the dumbest, most self-destructive campaigns ever. It is hurting the Conservatives in Ontario. The worst came late last week when pipsqueak Tory MP Pierre Poilievre said: "All Dalton McGuinty has ever done on immigration is run a sponsorship-style slush fund that cost him his citizenship minister." That kind of rhetorical overkill is idiotic - coming, as it does, from a government that last year established a multi-million dollar sponsorship program of its own. Memo to Pierre: McGuinty just got re-elected with a bigger majority than the one he had when the election was called, sonny boy; he's popular and doing a great job. You, meanwhile, would get asked for I.D. at a gathering of those unfortunate enough to be your immediate family.
This seems to be more of a paid political announcement for McGuinty than it does an defense of Dion. I guess even Kinsella couldn't come up with a full ten reasons defending Dion.
7. Flaherty’s attacks on McGuinty may well result in Team McGuinty getting much more involved in the federal campaign than anyone had expected. Given that Mr. McGuinty is considered to have a pretty solid team behind him, that can’t possibly be good news for the federal Tories. Who are they going to rely on? John Tory? Uh-huh.
See above.
8. In Quebec, things aren’t so hot for les bleus, either. The Charest-Harper relationship is distinctly cooler, and the federal Tories’ ardour for Mario Dumont is only likely to make things worse. When Charest is getting very popular again, is that a good strategy? Um, no.
Dion seems to be in melt down mode in Quebec. And no matter how you spin it, that's bad news for the "most successful political machine in Western democracy."
9.The media remain distinctly less-than-friendly with the Harper folks. They may not love Stéphane Dion, but – during the campaign – you can expect to see them cuddling with him more than once, if only to get back at Harper’s PMO. It’ll be ugly, as love triangles always are. But Dion will benefit.
Wow the media might be against the Conservative candidate. That's never, ever happened in the history of the world! Come on. The media always hates the conservative candidate. They hated Reagan, they hated Thatcher, they hated Harris. Does that mean they lost? Um, no.
10. Stéphane Dion is a decent, hard-working guy. Canada is full of decent, hard-working guys and gals. The more they get to know him, the more they will like him. Just watch.
Whenever a political spin doctor says the more people get to know their candidate the more they will like him, it's a sure sign the guy is a loser.
Overall, you got to give Kinsella credit for standing up for his guy. But trying to depict Dion as a viable leader is like trying to sell Eliot Spitzer as "Husband of the Year."
Posted by Gerry Nicholls on April 3, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e551add1ab8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Deconstructing Kinsella :
Comments
Kinsella spends so much time in the blog trenches arguing at the level of Pee Wee Herman's "I know you are but what am I?" and the ever popular "R-too, R-not" scenarios that he has zero credibility as a national political pundit, commentator or sleazy lawyer.
Couple that with his propensity to hang out with motley no-talent punk rock wannabes and you have a huge adolescent who is just pissed off that he isn't more than he is.
Posted by: John West | 2008-04-03 1:50:04 PM
Thanks for the solid counter-analysis, Gerry. Always good to read your stuff!
Posted by: Warren K | 2008-04-03 2:16:43 PM
Gerry wrote:
---
Overall, you got to give Kinsella credit for standing up for his guy. But trying to depict Dion as a viable leader is like trying to sell Eliot Spitzer as "Husband of the Year."
---
That's funny.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-04-03 2:54:37 PM
WK wrote:
" #4-Voters like meat and potatoes platforms (which is why Harper won in 2006, by the way)."
By the way WK ,voters might like meat and potatoes platforms but they hate corrupt political parties and their weasly, smug hanger-ons ,have you forgotten about a little thing called the sponsorship scandal?
The voting public hasn't despite all the fantasy archeological scandals the Liberals have been wasting everyone's time with trying to dig up in their sandbox lately with their toy shovels and little plastic buckets.
Posted by: bocanut | 2008-04-03 9:04:39 PM
As I recall, Warren Kinsella has done government contract work for the Dalton McGuinty government for as long as they have been elected.
To talk badly of them, his Liberal employers, would be a conflict of interest politics wise.
As I see it, Dalton has some explaining to do to those that hold the purse strings in Ontario respecting the tanking economy, impending doom which even bank executives and economists casn't ignore.
The recessionary American economy, the Elephant in Ontario's economic room.
Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle | 2008-04-04 5:03:16 PM
I think WK is rather dramatically over-estimating the strength of the Liberal front bench.
Dryden can't even speak English, except from crib notes -- much less french. His pregnant pauses and chopped sentence-fragments don't signal profundity, as he intends; they signal puffery.
Rae is still a liability, especially in Ontario. What can you say about someone who doesn't have a clue how the market works until he is 50 years old and has messed up one economy?
Ignatieff is better than the others only because he tends to be closer to the Conservatives on issues like Afghanistan (foreign affairs generally), free trade, and his distance from the sponsorship scandal.
Kennedy is still an unreconstructed socialist, as far as I can tell. He still thinks good intentions fix problems.
Hall-Finlay is the best of the lot, in my opinion. I once heard her give a speech in which she used the terms 'comparative advantage' and 'competitive advantage' in a way that suggested she actually understood the difference -- a first for a federal Liberal. I think she's rather quick on her feet, and more candid than most politicians, too. But she is so far down the pecking order, she isn't going to do the Liberals much good.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-04-06 1:16:20 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.