Tories Slide

Latest CPAC-SES overnight numbers: Lib 34% Cons 29%. SES suggests that the new Liberal ads (the ones comparing Harper to Mulroney and Harris) are sticking. We'll see. At the very least this seems at odds with Harper's confidence that he's within striking distance of a majority. I've been skeptical, and my skepticism is only bolstered by numbers like this.

Putin Lied!

Or something.

Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence after the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday...

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

The Bush administration in part justified the invasion of Iraq by saying Saddam had links to terror groups, including al-Qaida. The U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said this week there was no evidence of any collaboration between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's terror network.

Putin said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime was actually behind any terrorist acts.

The Weblog Effect

During the Democratic Party primaries in the United States, much was made of the use of the internet in general, and weblogs in particular, by Howard Dean's campaign team. Blogs were alternately credited with creating an energized and networked support base and blamed for overamplifying the size of that base. Whatever the actual effect of blogs, there was no shortage of media attention.

Blogs may be playing a role here in Canada during this election cycle, but if they are it may be substantially different. Dean's bloggers caught media attention because they were working for politicians, most particularly to raise huge amounts of funds for their campaigns. The Canadian parties have not been able to create the same sort of online networks of blogging supporters; neither have the successfully mastered the 'blog' format for their own websites.

And yet Canadians seem to be turning to blogs all the same. My evidence for this is entirely unscientific: I simply note that my traffic has doubled - from about 100 unique hits a day (as measured by sitemeter) to about 200. I suspect many other weblogs have experienced a similar bump.

Intruigingly, the majority of my new visitors appear to be clicking through from Andrew Coyne, who's blogroll features Maderblog in an improbably prominant position. My increase in traffic, therefore, appears to be a consequence of Coyne's (presumably much-larger) increase in traffic.

Coyne's site is not a simple bare-bones weblog, of course, which is why I expect his readership is so large and growing. He has succesfully integrated all sorts of syndication services so that it acts at once as an outlet for his blogged commentary and as a source for the latest news on the Canadian campaign. His site is, in short, a clearinghouse for Canadian news and opinion. And Canadians - as well as Americans, if my referrer logs are to be believed - are lapping it up.

If there is a weblog phenomenon at work during this campaign - and many more questions must be asked before we can be sure - it appears to have a different focus than in the States. Whereas the Dean blogs were geared towards campaigning and fundraising, the Canadian blogosphere appears to be focused much more on news aggregation and dissemination. Political parties may find that disappointing, but an interested and engaged electorate should see it as a very good thing.

America, America

My blogging time has more or less disappeared this summer, in part because of the demands of my job and in part because of the inconsistency of my home high-speed service. What time I do have I dedicate to the exciting Canadian election (who'd have anticipated that turn of phrase). As a result, I've been paying woefully little attention - in my news-reading as well as my blogging - to the political situation in the United States.

In particular, I haven't had time to ponder and discuss the current controversy over the use of torture by the Pentagon in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm a little disappointed with the sentiment expressed in this excerpt from a Washington Post editorial - not because I disagree with the Post's position (though I think I do), but because it continues to treat all coercive acts as torture to be similarly condemned. "Much of what the guards did -- from threatening prisoners with dogs, to stripping them naked, to forcing them to wear women's underwear -- had been practiced at U.S. military prisons elsewhere in the world," the Post writes. But what the initial Abu Ghraib pictures captured was a step beyond such acts - from individual to group humiliation; from intimidation with dogs to violence with dogs; from sexually-colored degredation to rape.

Now it's certainly possible that the saction of the former facilitated the realization of the latter - and Andrew Sullivan suggests as much, I think, in his comments here. But I've been arguing since the beginning that it would be a mistake to treat all coercive acts as criminal acts.

I recognize, of course, that many disagree. As I also said back when the scandal broke, this is a debate that needs to occur. It is now taking place. The problem is that it should have taken place at least a year ago; debating the merits of coercive treatment only after that treatment has been applied - and after it has spiralled into out-and-out abuse and torture - is and can only ever be a half-measure. This debate will necessarily be colored by that failure.

And a failure it is - a failure, first and foremost, of leadership. One can understand why the decision was made - by those up to and including the President of the United States - to apply coercive pressure to terrorist prisoners. One can even understand why there would be an impulse towards discretion in discussing the matter publicly. And yet that impulse ought to have been mastered. This President and his administration have declared their dedication to the enlargement of democracy and their commitment to its fundamental ideals. They acted, I believe, in a manner they hoped would be most effective in achieving their stated goals. But that manner was ultimately inconsistent with those ideals. Whether one supports or opposes the application of coercive force to terrorist prisoners, the administration has failed with regard to this matter. They have failed the American people - and they have failed themselves.

Harper Won (?)

Further to the previous post, here's a Globe story about an Ipsos poll that - well, I'll let it tell its own story:

The survey found Mr. Martin was the only party leader whose standing with viewers went down -- more said their impression of him worsened than improved -- while the other three all improved in the eyes of viewers. Mr. Harper won on every measure, including his ideas and his debating style, while Mr. Martin was ranked fourth on style, behind Mr. Duceppe...

Thirty-five per cent of respondents said Mr. Harper offered the best ideas and policies, 27 per cent said the same of Mr. Layton and Mr. Martin got only 26 per cent.

The Debate

Didn't watch it. I suspect I was far from alone. But while everybody's talking about Martin's "did your handlers" line (what an arrogant [censored], by the way), I thought the best exchange of the night was as follows (paraphrased:

Mr. Harper: ... but I think we can support our allies while still being a sovereign country - I'm interested in sovereignty--

Mr. Duceppe: Me too.

Changed

The Shorcan Index Election Indicator, an election futures market, has the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives for the first time in a week. As of 14:45 EDT, Liberals Bid:33.1 Ask:34.1, Conservatives Bid:32.8 Ask 33.8.

Unchanged

Today's CPAC-SES overnight tracking numbers are more or less unchanged from yesterday, with the Tories 33%, Liberals 32%; Martin 28%, Harper 26%; and 59% wanting change in government.

WMD

How come we haven't heard more about this?

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared...

The Baghdad missile site contained a range of WMD and dual-use components, UN officials said. They included missile components, reactor vessel and fermenters – the latter required for the production of chemical and biological warheads.

"It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax."

The Debate

I caught a bit of the second hour of the French-language leaders' debate. Some general impressions: Martin looked better than I'd expected - he was energetic, obviously comfortable in French, reasonably articulate and on message. Harper was passable, and perhaps that's all he had to be - his French was at least as good as Layton's. I suppose the question is what Harper had to achieve - and if all he had to do was a) speak decent French and b) not come across as the demon Martin says he is, then Harper passed.

But I have to say I was a bit disappointed with Harper's bobbing and weaving. Martin is demonstrating that he will say anything, no matter how outrageous, no matter how untrue, no matter how infuriatingly contradictory and shameless, in order to maintain his desperate grasp on power. (That, by the way, should be a campaign issue). He's got Harper on the defensive, and it shows. Martin had a strong line: will Mr. Harper invoke the notwithstanding clause on a matter of a 'fundamental charter right' (I translate loosely from the French). Look for it in tomorrow night's English debate. This line is the key to Martin's 'issues' attack, suggesting as it does that Harper will use Parliament to run roughshod over Charter rights - specifically, abortion and gay marriage.

This is one Harper should be able to hit out of the park. Instead, he bobs and weaves. I've never suggested that, he says, you have; I would allow all MPs to vote their conscience; bla; bla; bla. Harper has to put this one to rest. 'You assume,' he must tell Martin, 'that the questions of abortion and gay marriage are settled in the collective Canadian mind. I don't believe that's the case. I beleve Canadians are still struggling with these questions, and I believe that the only institution that can properly address these issues is Parliament, the voice of the people.' It will lose the news-rooms and the chattering classes. But it will win those thousands of Canadians who will, suddenly, remember what it is to live in a democracy. Paul Martin's social policy is to be enforced by an unelected institution regardless of the opinions of the people of Canada, based on the supremely arrogant supposition that his opinion is, and must be, the supreme law of the land. That's his idea of democracy. It's time Mr. Harper held it up to the light.

Misoverestimated

Adam Daifallah suggests - second-hand - that raised expectations may be setting Stephen Harper up for a fall.

A New Jim Crow?

Jonathan Rauch has a must-read column in the Washington Post warning that Virginia is set to enact a law which would appear to severely curtain the freedom of contract.

The act -- really an amendment to an earlier law -- was passed in April, over Gov. Mark R. Warner's objections, and it takes effect July 1. It says, "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."

Dead Heat

Going into tonight's French-language leaders' debate, CPAC-SES sees the Liberal and Conservative parties even in support - Conservatives 34%, Liberals 33%. This matches up with data from other polling firms. Stephen Harper has bounced back in electability, and stands at 27% (up ten points from the start of the campaign) versus Paul Martin's 30% (down one point). Expect Harper's numbers to rise later this week.

A week ago I wrote: "If Harper holds his ground for a week - which is to say, if he stays within the statistical margin of error versus the Liberal Party - he'll go into the debates in a position of strength, and Martin will be out of ammunition." That's where we stand today.

When You Assume

Andrew Coyne links to an intruiging piece in the Toronto Star, which suggests that "Canadians appear to want a Liberal-style government led by Stephen Harper's Conservatives."

The Star bases this suggestion on, among others, the following poll responses:

Over-all, the poll showed that most respondents placed abundantly more faith in the Liberals to strengthen the social agenda. A full 46 per cent said Liberals would strengthen equal rights for same-sex couples, compared to 17 per cent who thought Conservatives would do the same. On women's rights and access to abortion, 43 per cent said Liberals would strengthen them, compared to 21 per cent for Conservatives.

Liberals were also trusted more to keep up the commitment to the Kyoto air-quality protocol, with 41 per cent saying it would be strengthened by Martin's team, compared to 21 per cent who placed their faith in Harper (who said this week that the Kyoto accord was effectively dead).

Kicked Out of Ottawa?

Ottawa Citizen reporter-extraordinaire Zev Singer has a shocker of a story suggesting that, based on riding-by-riding vote projections, the Liberals could lose five of six urban Ottawa ridings.

The projection, which applies data from opinion polls published over the last two weeks to riding-specific polling data from the last election, will see the Conservatives take four of the seats, with the NDP winning the other...

Ottawa Centre, which had been held by Liberal Mac Harb, who was appointed to the Senate last year, is ready to fall to NDP candidate Ed Broadbent, the numbers show.

In Ottawa West-Nepean, where Marlene Catterall is seeking re-election, her Conservative rival, Sean Casey, will win by 14,000 votes if public sentiment stays the same.

In Nepean-Carleton, Conservative candidate Pierre Poilievre is set to win the the riding of Liberal incumbent David Pratt, the defence minister, by 9,000 votes.

Ottawa-Orleans, where Liberal incumbent Eugene Bellemare was ousted for the party's nomination by Marc Godbout, will see the election of Conservative Walter Robinson, by 1,400 votes, according to the projection.

The riding in the tightest race is Ottawa South. The Liberal home of John Manley, who is not running for re-election, is just barely leaning toward Conservative Alan Riddell, who leads Liberal David McGuinty by just 145 votes, the projection says.

Flag-Waving

The Cross of St. George is making a comeback in England. The Telegraph investigates. To the paper's list of significant events in the emergence of this new English national pride, I'd add the death of the Queen Mother. Granted, it was a British rather than English event, but it marked, I think - along with the Queen's jubilee - the redemption of the Crown and the rejection of the 90's-era 'Cool Brittania'.

A Life Providential

Margaret Thatcher remembers Ronald Reagan:

Ronald Reagan carried the American people with him in his great endeavours because there was perfect sympathy between them. He and they loved America and what it stands for - freedom and opportunity for ordinary people.

As an actor in Hollywood's golden age, he helped to make the American dream live for millions all over the globe. His own life was a fulfilment of that dream.

He never succumbed to the embarrassment some people feel about an honest expression of love of country.

He was able to say 'God Bless America' with equal fervour in public and in private. And so he was able to call confidently upon his fellow-countrymen to make sacrifices for America - and to make sacrifices for those who looked to America for hope and rescue.

With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world.

And so today the world - in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw, in Sofia, in Bucharest, in Kiev and in Moscow itself - the world mourns the passing of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer 'God Bless America'.

Making It Stick

For the first time in a week, the CPAC-SES nightly tracking poll sees Conservative support decline. The Tories and the Liberals are now dead even, 34% to 33% respectively. The strong Liberal 'values' attacks seem to be sticking. Does this mark a turning point for the campaign, or will Harper recover over the weekend and maintain his position of strength going into the debates?