“When Mitt Romney Came To Town” Film: Operation Inoculation

Mitt Romney knows he has one large electoral problem, and it’s his time spent as CEO of Bain Capital during the 1980s and 1990s. If there’s one thing the left and Obama know how to demagogue against (disingenuously, perhaps, but that’s for another day), it’s big-business “Wall Street Fat Cats”. But that specific line of attack only really hurts him with the left-wing Democrat base, which he need not worry about. It’s the Republican base he has to fear, even though it has traditionally resisted this attack, as “Wall Street Greed” has traditionally been seen by conservatives as an ugly but necessary part of free-market capitalism.

To that point, this 25-minute short film, “When Mitt Romney Came To Town”, is an intriguing case in what may be one of the most sophisticated Presidential campaign “black-ops” we have ever seen. The film tells the story of a few examples of Romney’s “creative destruction” at Bain Capital, through the eyes of blue-collar workers whose jobs were eliminated due to the “corporate raiding” of Mitt’s firm.  Watch for yourself, and you’ll see this takes a decidedly left-wing tone: it says, essentially, “Romney destroyed the lives of thousands of poor helpless blue-collar workers”. It’s a tone that, while dramatic, does not really resonate with the Republican base, which generally accepts the thesis that bankruptcy and “creative destruction” are a legitimate part of the free market. So the question is: why would Newt Gingrich be so foolish as to use this film to try to rally the conservative base against Romney? 

While countless conservative commentators have rightly chastised Gingrich and Rick Perry for promoting the left-wing populist angle used in this film to attack Romney (conservatives do not want their candidates to be seen as attacking capitalism), most have gone a step further and given Mitt Romney the ultimate weapon in securing the Republican nomination: they’ve told conservative voters to LAY OFF BAIN! Only Sarah Palin, in her numerous Fox News appearances in recent days, has refused to declare Bain “off-limits”, and has advised voters to take a close look at Mitt’s record – in particular, his claims of job creation, and his possible use of his corporate takeovers to attract government subsidies and bailouts. In fact, last night on Sean Hannity’s program, she used the key word that I think explains what’s going on here: inoculation.

Which gets me to my theory: this film was subversively created by the Romney campaign itself, in order to achieve this desired result of inoculation on Bain. The reason he needs to create the meme out there that “an attack on Bain is an attack on capitalism”, is because of the aforementioned Governor Palin, and her rallying the Republican base around the cause of Crony Capitalism. The Tea Party base of the party is now wise to the concept of statism, cronyism, corporatism, and corruption coming from the big-business side of the economy. The type of capitalism Romney engaged in with Bain is a problem with the Tea Party base not because he put people out of work (many types of capitalism involve the elimination of jobs), but because the businesses and jobs themselves were not a factor at all in the business decisions of Bain, just collateral damage that, on the aggregate, has been extremely harmful to America. Jobs, and the businesses themselves, were irrelevant to the partners at Bain. What Bain and other corporate raiders actually do is not “turn around failing companies. It’s the search for opportunities on balance sheets, stock prices, and regulatory environments, to exploit through political connections and complex financial instruments, to create paper profits, and damn the consequences.

It’s a complex discussion that can take volumes to fully explain. But what Romney’s campaign has discovered it needs to hide is the fact that the profits at Bain usually could not occur without the exploitation of political contacts, regulatory loopholes, and questionable complex financial tactics. So while Newt and Perry were foolish enough to take the bait on this film’s apparent attack on capitalism itself, Palin will continue to try to drag them back from the edge of self-destruction by rescuing the narrative. Romney’s problem is a Crony Capitalism problem, and he knows it. That’s why it’s no coincidence, this film was produced by Jason Killian Meath, a former business associate and 2008 campaign leader for Mitt Romney himself. Romney’s team, consisting undoubtedly of many brilliant and experienced tactical political operators, is loving the effect this film is having. Mission accomplished? We’ll see how successful the savviest political minds, including Governor Palin, are at rescuing the narrative.

Tim Pawlenty 2007: Listen to Visionaries like Jimmy Carter, ignore Global Warming Skeptics

I started this blog in February 2007, and many of my initial posts centered around the mountains of evidence emerging that the whole Global Warming/Climate Change movement was a complete fraud. In fact, the talk of March 2007 around the ‘net was UK Channel 4’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary, which exposed the faulty science behind the political watermelon movement. There was an attempt in 2006 to start a “Crunchy Con” movement, but that was a non-starter that fooled no one.

Fast-forward to May 2011, and we have a character named Tim Pawlenty, pretending to be the small-c conservative standard bearer for the Republicans in the 2012 Presidential Election campaign. Yet where was he in April 2007, when we already knew that the Global Warming emperor had no clothes? He was addressing the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) in Minneapolis, with this brief speech. Here is the full text of his remarks to the organization, found also in the .pdf minutes of the MCCAG found here.

Thank you everyone. You’re all busy and you’ve taken time to help us form a better environmental program for the state.

As Peter Drucker taught us, “The practices that got us here, won’t get us to the future. The best way to think about future is to go out and invent it.”

It looks like we should have listened to President Carter. He called us to action, and we should have listened. So we now have ourselves in a bit of a pickle. As is often the case, the people are way ahead of the politicians. We’re benefiting from their tailwind.

Other visionaries deserve credit too, many who may have been dismissed as goofy. They were right, not goofy. Energy and climate issues are intertwined. Climate change is real. Human behavior is partly and may be a lot responsible. Those who don’t think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on voices that say it’s not real. Please don’t let these voices discourage or distract you from your mission.

Our hope is at the end of your deliberations, you will have given us a plan for action. I’m proud of Minnesota’s longstanding attention to environmental issues, but here we need to raise the bar as others catch up. We want to be bold, dynamic. But we have to fashion steps. Our actions on climate can’t unravel the political consensus or the Minnesota economy. It must be done in a rational way.

Sometimes success has led to complacency. Sadly we have been complacent in thinking about energy and environment. But we’re reaching a tipping point, and we have to deal with it now. I’ll do my best to lead and advocate for your recommendations.

In summary: ‘Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech was right-on. Listen to the visionaries like him and Al Gore, and ignore those deniers who stand in the way of  big-government solutions to climate change. I believe the climate is at a tipping-point, and I’ll act as governor to do whatever you zealots recommend.’

T-Paw has tried to distance himself from enviro-pimping ways of the past. But his “mistake” wasn’t in, say, 1997, when he could have claimed to not have known any better. This was 2007, when the debunking was publicly available, and the red agenda of the green movement was well known. He was already Governor of a state, and was actively encouraging the greens to provide him a plan to implement! Later in 2007, he actually signed a state bill requiring a Minnesota task force to come up with recommendations on how to implement a cap-and-trade system. There’s no way to write this one off as a youthful indiscretion.

So the question is: Is Tim Pawlenty a naive fool, or another two-faced RINO? Either way: I cannot take his candidacy seriously. If you were pushing that stuff just four years ago, you have no business pretending to be a conservative.

Rex Murphy on Sarah Palin: An Outsider appreciates an Outsider

Few things have bothered me as much in the past couple of years more than the Canadian commentariat’s reaction to former Alaska Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s emergence as a political force. The left’s vitriol is completely expected, as disgusting as it is (the true face of the left emerges, as the supposed champions of feminism savagely rape the reputation of a successful woman). But nasty attacks from the likes of David Frum, Margaret Wente, Diane Francis, and many in the National Post’s roster of otherwise sensible young libertarian commentators, had been mystifying and depressing.

Well, it took nearly two years, but finally – finally! – an intelligent Canadian pundit has figured out that the Sarah Palin phenomenon is a wonderful thing, and that her detractors’ primary source of animus comes down to the fact that she is an outsider working in an elite insider’s culture. In today’s National Post, Rex Murphy breaks it down in Understanding the Sarah Palin Effect. First, he explains why she is an attractive person and politician:

She is a cheerful human being, with a large family, an apparently easy-going and normal husband. She has a personality that would sell corn flakes — if not grow them. What career she had in Alaska, she earned. She’s at home indoors and out, radiates human warmth, seems to have some balance about herself, and has displayed over the last year or so a considerable fortitude under an avalanche of mockery and hatred. For the final stroke of this cameo I should note she is smart — smarter than 90% of the people who make a point of how rock-stupid they know she is.

She, by rights, should be queen of the feminists. All that self-reliance, her takeover of Alaska politics, the rocket ride to a Vice-Presidential ticket, a public career she blends with her family life– these seem gold-standard credentials for a real feminist. But official feminism derides herewith an unspeakable intensity. Her early critics were not beyond the inane claim that she was somehow not really a woman.

Then, perhaps using insight gleaned throughout his career, as a Newfoundland-born-and-raised outsider with a funny accent who was likely often treated like the “House Newfie” by many elitist colleagues at the CBC and Globe & Mail, he nails what may well be the #1 reason why the political and cultural elite of both left and right hate Sarah Palin so much:

I side with those who venture that the nerves Palin hits have more to do with class — where she’s from, how she speaks, where she was educated, what she likes (the moose-hunting), than her politics or her gender. She’s rural, she came into national politics from (ugh) Alaska. She and her husband have the unerasable stigmata of the modern working class. She would not be embarrassed to be seen walking into Wal-Mart.

Those characteristics and attitudes, in themselves, are not objectionable. In fact, hymns to working class habits and virtues are the very songbook of most elite American politicians and journalists. That crowd sings lustily what it does not feel. Remember the aphorism ascribed to Lincoln: “God must have loved the common man. He made so many of them.”

But America’s professional public class, and the commentariat who still have some (though declining) power to police it, like to view Lincoln’s common man, or woman, as an object in the distance, as an object of their supercilious care and concern, but not as a player in the game. Palin is simply not supposed to be a player. She’s not only from the wrong side of the tracks, she’s so far over on the wrong side she can’t see the railway station.

But there she is, in all her roughness and candour, and her spiky wit and ability to irritate her self-nominated betters. She also happens to be the most naturally charismatic politician at the moment in the United States. She is the one major figure who can claim authenticity without morally choking on the word. That makes her the populist rallying point of a nascent rejection of the fervid partisanship and Washington insiderism that is eroding the consent on which American politics is founded.

No wonder Obama claims he won’t respond when she tweets. The Hope and Change President still owns Hope, but real Change in current American politics is on Palin’s side of the ledger.

By Jove, he’s got it: the elites (moneyed, educated, urban, effete) may claim to be “for the common man” – but their policies, almost universally, effect to keep the common man at arm’s length. Whether it’s “universal health care” (public hospitals for thee, private American clinics for me), public transportation (get these peons and their beat-up Hyundais off my roads!), or the false promise of sustainable public pension plans (we’ll pay you out if we can…we’ve still got our investments), the Marie Antoinettes of both parties wish for the good things in life to be reserved for them, without having to bear the indignity of rubbing shoulders with the great unwashed. For bringing this insight to the minds of Canada’s group-thinkers – thank God for House Newfies! And God Bless Sarah Palin, who understands that the world without a strong America is a very frightening place.

Toronto City Councillor Paula Fletcher Shows Off Ugly Face of the Left

A taxpayer listens to John Tory’s drive-time radio show on 1010am, and is encouraged to attend a public budget consultation meeting at Toronto City Hall. After asking a question about rising property tax rates, Toronto Ward 30 City Councillor Paula Fletcher does us all a great favour, and shows us off the true face of the leftist crew that currently runs Toronto council: utter contempt, absolute condescension, and pure venomous hatred for the middle class. Her public denunciation of the taxpayer is indistinguishable from the tactics used in Maoist and Stalinist purges. Listen and be amazed at the treatment afforded to a man who, like us all, pays her salary!

Toronto City Councillor Paula Fletcher Freaks Out on Constituent, Radio Host, Political Enemies.

UPDATE: Did I say “Marxist Hatred”? I didn’t even know how right I was! For, alas, this is the same Paula Fletcher that led the Communist Party of Canada – Manitoba from 1981-86, standing as a candidate for the legislature under that party’s banner twice.

Michael Ignatieff’s Vision of Canada: Dreary, Vacuous Mythology

Thanks to National Newswatch for linking to this unintentionally hysterical end-of-year sympathy-cry for the hapless Leader of the Opposition, Michael Ignatieff, courtesy of the shameless Susan Delacourt of The Toronto Star.

First, the lede:

…doesn’t he just want to give up, go back to his charmed life as an international academic and writer?

“Never,” Ignatieff says. “I’m here. I’m staying. I’m not going anywhere.”

If there’s one thing we’ve learned about Iggy in 2009, it’s that his tough talk is a complete sham. Why even pretend you’re an alpha-male, Iggy? Fact is, the only thing in your control is where you live (Toronto or Cambridge). He could be turfed out the back door just like his predecessor, Steffi, as soon as tomorrow for all we know. That much is up to the Liberal power brokers – not Iggy.

Next, Susan on how his ambitious turnaround plans will start:

As soon as the Liberal leader returns from an extended Christmas holiday – destination kept secret – he is headed out on the road, to connect with university students and rooms full of what he calls the “unconverted.”

Everyone can relate to those leaders who, when times get tough, go on extended vacations. And when Liberals need to convert the unconverted, of course they go straight to where a Liberal can hardly be found – the university campus! More on that:

“We’re going to universities. It’s important to preach to the unconverted. Some of what I have to do is rally the base, raise money. But the stuff I enjoy the most is going into rooms that aren’t full of Liberals – university crowds, university students are the future of Canadian politics and we have to get to them.”

A parody writer couldn’t have done a better job inventing the character, “Delusional lefty politician”.

As usual in the mainstream press, the important and valuable insight can be gleaned by reading the story bottom-up. The final paragraph contains Iggy’s depressing vision of Canada. Does he speak of freedom? Opportunity? Prosperity? Northern toughness? Achievement? How about even the basic Liberal boilerplate of Human Rights, Equality and Multiculturalism? Well, high-minded dreamers, here’s Canada in the mind of the man who wants to be your Prime Minister:

“I think it’s a small-l liberal country and I don’t want that to sound arrogant,” Ignatieff says. “I think that the country is small-l liberal in that it believes passionately in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It believes in publicly funded health care. It believes that Canadians should not be abandoned when they lose their jobs, they need help and training. It believes that anybody who has good grades to get through school should get all the education our society can provide. This stuff hasn’t moved very much.”

“It believes passionately in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” – I don’t think so. Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of Canadians could not recite a single line from the charter, and at least 50% wouldn’t even be able to tell you a single concept contained therein. Many Canadians are told that they believe passionately in the Charter; but most have no clue what that even means.

“It believes in publicly funded health care” – that’s number two on our list, how we pay our doctors? Makes us sound like a country of soulless bean-counters, not human beings.

“It believes that Canadians should not be abandoned when they lose their jobs” – amazingly, dear leader can’t even come up with a third point of vision, and reverts instinctively to petty partisanship, as if helping the unemployed is somehow an issue of controversy.

“It believes that anybody who has good grades to get through school should get all the education our society can provide” – he’s a professor, an author, a journalist, and a political leader; and yet, he can’t even compose a coherent sentence on the topic of education as a national value. Cue the parody writer again: Idiotic academic who can’t even master the art of bullshit.

The dreariness of this man! Enjoy that vacation, dear sir. For a non-entity, it can neither hurt nor help.

Former leftist speaks truth: The Wilding of Sarah Palin

Despite growing up in a largely hedonistic liberal-Jewish community and family, I never felt comfortable with left-leaning politics or the cultural mores of those around me. Although my conservative awakening started to emerge quite early (I remember feeling great sympathy for Preston Manning and his Reform movement for the snobbish bashing he was taking back in the early 1990s, when I was barely 20), it took until sometime just after 9/11/2001 for me to finally and forever consider myself “of the right”. As liberals – whose propaganda throughout my youth created the myth of “liberal compassion” versus “right-wing hate” (as in “The Holocaust is what happens when the right gains power”) – fell over themselves to make excuses for Islamic hatred, ignore the celebrations in the Arab street, promote the non-existent “anti-Muslim backlash”, and in many cases not-so-subtly imply that “America had it coming” (as if the hundreds of children whose fathers would never come home to tuck them in to bed at night ever again were somehow acceptable collateral damage in some sort of acceptable counter-attack to some sort of unacceptable American sin), I discovered the truth – that “liberal compassion” is indeed a myth, and the reality is that liberalism is cruel, selfish, and harmful. (The next major event to confirm this conclusion came a couple of years later, when liberals from Nantes to Nunavut were adamant to diagnose with certainty that a woman in a home for the disabled in Pinellas Park, Florida was brain dead, and insisted she be starved to death for the convenience and profit of her conniving husband).

For “Robin of Berkeley” (the pseudonym for a Berkeley, California based psychotherapist and former leftist who now writes for The American Thinker), the realization that liberalism really stands for cruelty came only after 30 years of hard-left activism. Probably in her 40s now, Robin abandoned liberalism and swung to the right less than two years ago, and gained affirmation that “everything I believed was wrong” in last year’s US election campaign thanks to the obscene treatment of, first, Hillary Clinton, and then Sarah Palin. I highly recommend going back and reading Robin’s earliest entries in her regular American Spectator career by browsing her columns here, particularly for her views on Clinton’s treatment; however, I insist you read her latest installment, “The Wilding of Sarah Palin”. In the column, she reveals the ugly parallels between the left’s hard-core sexualization, dehumanization, and humiliation of the Vice Presidential candidate, and the use of gang-rape as a tool of intimidation, dehumanization and humiliation in tribal war. By violating Palin and her family in the most personal way, the left seeks to both destroy Sarah Palin as a human being, and emasculate the men of the conservative movement who stand by powerless to stop the abuse.

The paradox here is that the Palin phenomenon is only gaining steam, as the former Alaska governor continues her rise to prominence and power. This is because, unlike the tribal primitivism that still dominates much of the world and still informs the sensibilities of the left, the progressive world of Sarah Palin and the American heartland does not believe that a raped woman has been shamed and must submit to a shunned second-class status or worse. Thank God, most Americans believe that a raped woman is simply a victim with the power to recover and come back stronger; in a civilized society, it is the rapist that must be shunned and must submit to a second-class status or worse.

It doesn’t take much more than a pinch of wisdom to recognize who, in any public persecution, is the rape-victim, and who is the rapist. It does, however, take great moral weakness to allow the rapists of “your team” get away with it. It takes great intellectual weakness to delude yourself into confusing which party is the victim, and which the perpetrator, or to use the “slutty dress” defense to convince yourself that “she had it coming”. And it takes a great spiritual emptiness to sit back and enjoy the wilding of an innocent woman, guffawing at the latest Palin joke as another installment of today’s soul-destroying revel-in-the-brutalizing-of-people-for-televised-amusement culture.

(h/t goes to The Tammy Bruce Show for this one. Listen to the former radical feminist Tammy for a month, and you’ll understand the left for a lifetime.)

(For more on the near-equivalence between the rape of a body and the rape of a name, read Dennis Prager’s seminal column, “The Rape of a Name is Also Rape”.)

Michael Ignatieff: Another Disastrous Liberal Mistake

As long as Stephen Harper refuses to expand his PR image beyond “competent” and “safe”, he will fail to attain his much-desired majority government. If he can put forth a coherent, positive, aspirational vision for the country – whether it be with a hard conservative edge or not – he will get it. And now may be his opportunity, as he has once again combined strategic mastery with a bit of luck to buy himself at least another year as Prime Minister in a minority parliament, with an opposition in absolute disarray.

The latest work of strategic mastery? The 2009 budget, presented yesterday, unloved by everyone today. How can a document that has been panned across the ideological spectrum be considered a strategic masterpiece? 1) It pays lip service only to the irresistible force of the Keynesian “stimulus” nonsense fad dominating the world right now, projecting an inflated budget deficit that will never actually take place thanks to a neat poison pill (a provision that releases infrastructure funds only when matched dollar-for-dollar by provinces or municipalities – dollars that simply don’t exist) that will ensure most of the infrastructure billions announced will never be spent. This allowed Harper to gain Liberal support and earn NDP/Bloc wrath – wrath directed mostly at his true rivals, the Liberals, once again fracturing the left into little pieces; and 2) It avoids the “third rail” that conservative politicians must never touch – tax increases – and actually offers, in difficult times, small but tangible tax savings for most.

As for the luck? That happened in December, when the Liberal Party inexplicably decided to cancel its leadership race, and install “The Czar”, Michael Ignatieff, as its instant, permanent replacement for the hapless Stephane Dion. “Hey, he’s brilliant, he’s dashing, he’s worldly, he’s respected – he’s our Obama”, the pinheads in the party must have been saying. But what arrogant Liberals have failed to learn is: a coronation hands its recipient a poisoned chalice. The public at large will always be suspicious of a leader who did not earn his position. Paul Martin, Kim Campbell, and John Turner all learned this in the most humiliating way: each was utterly rejected by voters after being handed the Prime Ministership on a silver platter. I guarantee, the vast majority of non-political-junkie Canadians who watched the news tonight had the same opinion of this performance: who the hell is this guy, and who does he think he is, putting the government on “probation”?:

Iggy is everything the Liberals should have avoided: an arrogant-sounding, elitist, Toronto-centric, prickly, inexperienced, cold, humourless, hard-edged, bitter-looking opportunist, whose every public word makes him sound like an actor pretending to be a politician. While Stephane Dion had even worse flaws, at least he seemed genuine. As I have contended for two years now, there’s only one Liberal leadership candidate who was in the running that the Conservatives were scared of facing off against, and that was the very dangerous, very destructive Bob Rae. Further, there’s only one Liberal who could have peeled away the Conservative base and led them back to government quickly, and that would have been John Manley. But, as luck would have it, the Libs, panicked by their ill-conceived runaway-freight-train coalition experiment and their precarious financial position, took the worst possible choice in the worst possible manner.

Bad choices come with bad costs. Now, we’ll see if Harper can seize the opportunity, and move from being a competent caretaker to an inspirational leader.

Budget Bamboozler: Conservatives’ 2009 Puzzling Document

I wish I had the time to dig into the Conservatives’ 2009 Budget released today. Here’s the link, if you’re interested. But, between my family vacation earlier this month, my 3-year-old-son’s tonsilectomy/adenoidectomy last week, and my ongoing efforts to keep my business strong during these bizarre economic times, my blogging has screeched to a virtual halt.

From what I’ve read and heard in the media coverage so far today, this budget is a puzzler, from both an economic and a political perspective. Economically, the infrastructure-heavy spending plans are anything but a “stimulus” (I hate that word). Infrastructure spending is slow-moving, and highly inefficient thanks to local political graft and massive union-controlled labour inefficiency. If the Cons intend to actually proceed with the spending they’ve announced, then I think they’ve gone nuts. If they have made these announcements as a PR exercise, and end up spending a fraction of the funds (which is what I suspect is the case), then I think they’re acting wisely in the face of a media-generated Keynsian hysteria.

If, however, Flaherty & co. wanted a true “stimulus”, they could have cut the GST again; they could have chopped payroll taxes; they could have reduced energy taxes. Instead, the personal tax reductions are miniscule, and the home renovation tax credit is good “bang for the buck”, but will be a significant spending incentive to only a small sliver of the population. Perhaps government tax revenue projections, thanks to the decline in the investment markets, are so poor, that there’s simply no room to significantly drop taxes. Either way, at least there’s no tax increases.

Politically, it’s a little less difficult to understand. This is a survival budget – a document that the Liberals could not possibly defeat. It has backed the Liberals into a corner – with the coalition idiocy now no longer an option, and the Liberals under Iggy with no ideas of their own, this will maintain the status quo.

The questions for 2009 will be: what will the Harper Conservatives offer to small-c conservatives to excite them to keep their grass-roots support? And when will Harper finally put forward a coherent vision of what Canada is and should be, in order to rally the country to give him a majority? It’s a make-or-break year; he can’t float along forever on simple competence and continuity. And, for Iggy and the Liberals, the question is: what can they do, beyond their typical demagoguic bluster, to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives, now that Harper is, essentially, leading as a Liberal minus the corruption and tax increases.

The Libs still don’t get it: Andre Arthur on Quebecers’ hate for Stephane Dion

The Coalition-pushers at the CBC were hoping Quebec Independent MP Andre Arthur – the former talk radio iconoclast from the provincial capital – would help promote the myth that the Separatist-Opportunist-Socialist coalition (as coined by Monte Solberg) will be popular in Quebec (and thus, in the pathetic Europhilic arse-licking world of the urban left, an obviously good thing). Arthur wouldn’t bite at any of Don Newman’s promptings, and instead told him what Quebecers really think of the Coalition’s PM-wannabe, Stephane Dion (hint: they’d rather see him on a shrimp boat in Louisiana). Watch and enjoy!

Did anyone vote for this? Separatist-Opportunist-Socialist Coalition wants to run Canada

Is this a dream, or a nightmare? Just weeks after a Federal Election that returned a strengthened Conservative Minority Parliament to Canada, the three losing parties have joined together in an attempt to govern the country. To cut through the bull, here is what is happening, in a nutshell: the lefties in all three parties, inspired by the Barack and Bailout mania sweeping through the USA, want to join the party here North of the border. When Harper refused to join the Keynsian/New Deal redux to disaster, the socialists freaked.

Now, it’s up to them to convince ordinary Canadians – who, I would guess, are about 75% against this nonsense – that they are a legitimate government. Constitutional, maybe. Legitimate to the voters? Good luck with that one.

More soon.

UPDATE: Are you buying the “economic crisis in Canada” rhetoric of the three pinheads? Buried (purposely) by the media today: Canada’s GDP Rises in Q3. That means: no recession, folks. And, from first-hand experience as the proprietor of a consumer-discretionary-goods retail business – Canada is in much better shape, relatively speaking, than the US right now.