All things Canadian.....

I have a crude spreadsheet that I used to make seat projections. I base the calculations on the 2000 results, use the poll numbers in the West, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic regions to determine voter movement, and then project that movement onto each riding in the region.

If I use the actual popular vote numbers from the election and put them into my spreadsheet I get the following result - note it is based on a 301 House of Commons.

	Quebec	Ontario	West	Atlantic	Total
Lib.	16	85	16	21	138
Con.	0	17	63	7	87
N.D.P.	0	1	12	4	17
B.Q.	59				59
Total	75	103	91	32	301

Some regions are a bit off but it is clear that the seat projection technique isn't the crap shoot that some pollsters (the ones that didn't use seat projections) want you to believe - they are looking for a scape goat.

I saw this from a local paper in Huron-Bruce where Liberal Paul Steckle won handily:

He had only praise for Prime Minister Paul Martin, reserving harsh words for those who handled his campaign. “Paul Martin has done a good job in the short time he has been prime minister, and before that as finance minister,” said Steckle. “However, his handlers did a lousy job.”
The outspoken representative for Huron-Bruce went on to say some people would not want him saying that. “I’m going to begin this mandate by calling it the way it is.”

Steckle is by no means a Chretienite - he was on record during the 2000 election as saying Liberals would have an easier time campaigning if Martin was PM.

David Herle saved Paul Martin's job. He engineered the Liberal comeback that gave them a Minority government.

David Herle lost the Liberal's a majority. He destroyed Liberal solidarity. He engineered the most negative and divisive campaign in Canadian history.

David Herle will remain in charge of the Canadian government? From the Globe today:

Mr. Martin said he had no regrets about his campaign, and no plans to changes his inner-circle of advisers.

Posted to Jim Elve's Group Election Blog.

If I'm picking one loser today, it's Layton and the NDP. They don't seem to be holding the “balance of power” like everyone thought they would, they lost huge number of voters to the Liberals in the final days therefore depriving the party of much needed funds to, I expect, get themselves out of the huge debt they will soon announce, and they only increased their seat count by 7.

Why all the fuss?

In addition, the Liberals have moved from the centre of the spectrum and are running on the left leaving little room for the NDP for the next election. The Greens are going to get federal funding which will further cut into their support as well.

But possibly worst of all, Olivia and Jack won't be able to walk into the House of Commons hand in hand - a Canadian political fairy tale gone horribly wrong.

Always look at the bright side of....

Cambridge
Gary Goodyear
Conservative Party of Canada 19140
Janko "Dark Forces" Peric (incumbent)
Liberal Party of Canada 18912
Gary Price
New Democratic Party 10392

Charleswood-St. James
Steven John Fletcher
Conservative Party of Canada 18683
Glen Murray
Liberal Party of Canada 17857
Peter Carney
New Democratic Party 4283

and I think the closest race was in Edmonton and therefore the most likely to switch during a recount:

Edmonton-Beaumont
David Kilgour
Liberal Party of Canada 17467
Tim Uppal
Conservative Party of Canada 17435

Did you hear the big news - Ottawa traded Bonk and Lalime this weekend.

That's all I've been thinking about for the past few days. Nothing else to talk about here.

Boo hoo.

The ultimate reality TV show is on tonight!

After close to 4000 days of Liberal rule we could be witnessing a historic change of government. I hope so.

Just imagine – a Liberal-NDP coalition, backed by the Bloc. Corruption, taxation and separation all in one administration.

From the NDP campaign update:

We have heard reports that Liberal phone canvassers claiming to be ‘former NDP members’ are calling Ed’s supporters to try to convince them to vote ‘strategically’ for Richard Mahoney.

If you should receive such a call, don’t worry! Former Ottawa mayor Marion Dewar has prepared a letter that outlines why strategic voting in Ottawa Centre means voting for Ed!

Marion writes:

....

Ed has a lead in Ottawa Centre. The June 11 Ottawa Citizen/COMPAS poll had Ed holding a 20% lead. The local NDP polling done by Strategic Communications Ltd. shows that the Liberals will probably come third in this riding. That’s why a vote for the Liberals in Ottawa Centre will not stop a turn to the Conservatives. In fact, it might mean that the Conservative candidate could win Ottawa Centre.

....

Yours sincerely,

Marion Dewar
Former Mayor, City of Ottawa”

So remember Ottawa-Centre conservatives - vote Murphy and vote often!

Here's how I calculated my guess for part II of The Bow James Bow Election Pool:

Date:	June 28, 2004
Quebec
Lib.	33
Con.	15
N.D.P.	10
B.Q.	42
Ontario
Lib.	39
Con.	38
N.D.P.	23
West
Lib.	30
Con.	45
N.D.P.	25
Atlantic
Lib.	44
Con.	30
N.D.P.	26

	Quebec	Ontario	West	Atlantic	Total
Lib.	22	54	17	20	113
Con.	0	46	65	8	119
N.D.P.	0	6	13	4	23
B.Q.	53	0	0	0	53

Talking a lot about CBC recently.

Last night they had two backgrounders on Martin and Harper. Not very indepth but interesting to say the least. I'll give a brief opinion of the two parts.

Harper

Gotta love an ex-fiance's views on the man. She provided some insight into Harpers first foray's into politics - his making fun of 'future prime minister types' working for the party for example.
They showed him giving an early Reform speech warning the party of being hijacked by radicals and that they must protect themselves from it - interesting as many opponents try to protray Harper as the leader of these radicals - I think they are talking about the pro-life, gun lobby types. Did the CBC make it appear like Harper was trying to keep those groups quiet - and infer a "hidden agenda" - perhaps.
I wish they had of spent more time on Harper's reasons for leaving the Reform party. They explained it as his frustration with Manning's populist approach - taking well thought out and analyzed proposals - work that he had spent years on developing - and presenting them in church basements to people that hadn't spent 5 minutes thinking about. Manning said that he would respond - well it's their money. Good points both.
Manning also said that Harper worried about the majority view that Manning's approach looked for and that it can sometimes be dangerous - a view that Manning said he didn't share due to his optimism. It is ironic that so many people are criticizing Harper for the same thing that he worried about. I (as an optimist myself?) think it shows Harper's understanding about the balance required in such matters.
One last thing - gotta love the long hair shots of him in University - and his ex-fiance talking about the two of them listening to Beatles records.

Martin

I missed a little bit of Martin's segment but it mainly focused on the relationship with his father - showing some pages of his Dad's diary or letters to Paul Jr. that showed the inevitablility of the son following his father's path into politics.
It touched on Martin's rise in Power Corp and his buying of CSL. It made mention that Martin is probably the wealthiest Prime Minister in Canadian history.
Perhaps more interesting was the point where they talked about Kraft Dinner - his 'favourite' food. He doesn't know how to make it. Oh, and his wife never left their kids along with their father? - as it made him nervous? His biographer explained those two items as Martin's inattention to unimportant things.
The other intesting thing that was touched on was with regards to Martin's advisors - the guys who "killed the King" - and that the biggest mistake was leaving them in charge of the election campaign - I don't think many argue that point now.


Of course I'm really biased but I thought the key difference was while the Harper segment talked about his struggles with policy - with his struggles in understanding compromise and balance, the Martin segment was about personal ambition - his goal to do what his father didn't do and the creation of his personal wealth.

That is very clearly fundamental to our progrum. Let me be clear. This is very, um, incredibly important to me. I didn’t get into public life for no good reason. I am very, very committed to just about everything that you have asked, which are actually my fundamental priorities, and we have said that, without a doubt, it is our priority. But let me ask you a question, and that is, uh, could you repeat your question?

(altered from a version found on Coyne's blog)

The Ottawa economy was really badly hit by the Nortel and JDS meltdown - over 10,000 high tech jobs were lost over the past 4 years in this area - a huge number. The public service hiring spree was generally accepted as the reason the unemployment figures didn't jump and real estate prices kept rising.

It is reasonable to expect, and many Liberal radio ads highlight, if the Conservatives win this election the public sector job growth will slow down greatly and effect raises, promotions, etc. Many, many people have benefitted in this region from the Liberal record of government growth.

Despite this, it is expected that the Ottawa area is going to elect more Conservative members than Liberals. Ottawa-Orleans, Nepean-Carleton, and Ottawa West are all leaning Blue. Only Ottawa-Vanier, Hull-Alymer, and Gatineau are looking like Liberal wins. Ottawa-Centre will be an NDP win but might have gone Tory if Broadbent wasn't the NDP candidate.

Outside the urban area, the bordering regions might not elect a single Liberal. Renfrew, Lanark, Leeds, Stormont, and Glengarry in Ontario will all put in Conservative members. Even the Pontiac riding in Quebec appears to be an even race between the three parties with local Chelsea politician Judith Grant of the Conservatives doing very well.

Why are all these ridings refusing to put in Liberal members despite the obvious advantages to their economic situation?

The answer isn't entirely one dimensional but I think the biggest reason is that living in the Ottawa area you are exposed to far more political news every day. You get to know a little more of the Conservative plans and see the misrepesentation by the Liberals in the their ads and speeches. You see more of the contradictions on the Liberal positions over the past year. You get to see, by living on the border, the huge difference in the Liberal tactics in Quebec versus the rest of Canada.

We hear political columnists regularly so it is no surprise when we read articles like this on slimy Liberal moves:

The dirty tricks team at Paul Martin's Ontario campaign office was busy Tuesday afternoon rounding up volunteers in Toronto ridings to go to the SkyDome that evening to watch the Blue Jays take on the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

But this was much more than a friendly invitation: Ontario campaign chair Karl Littler, through his surrogates, was calling campaign offices to offer up Liberal volunteers to attend the game to boo Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, who was to throw out the first pitch that night.

Martin on CBC last night was at his best. His explanation on nominating candidates was pretty much an outright lie - especially the part on nominating women. Paul Wells has covered that quite extensively on his blog - here, here, and here for example.

If this campaign was any longer I think the Liberals would fall further than they have already. Canadians would realize that Martin is talking out both sides of his mouth and is being dishonest in his campaign. People in Ottawa realize it.

Coyne is asking what question you ask Martin on CBC tonight. My question would be this:

You criticize Stephen Harper for writing about Alberta leaving CPP while you have paid into Quebec QPP for years and support Quebec's right to opt out of such programs.
You criticize Harper on a hypothetical situation regarding Alberta health care changes while you have allowed private services to grow unopposed and even use a doctor that has private MRI clinics.
You proudly state you would never let the majority supress the rights of a minority when in fact you don't stand up for Anglophones in Quebec even when the court says the laws are in volation of the charter.
You misrepresent Conservative positions in your press releases, speeches, TV ads and Radio ads.
You said we would have answers before going to the polls.
How can I believe you?

I mused about voting for Ed Broadbent in Ottawa Centre in hopes that it would help ensure that the Liberal candidate didn't win but I've decided to vote for Mike Murphy of the Conservatives regardless for the following reasons:

1. Quality of candidates for next time
Regardless of who wins this riding there is a good chance we'll see another election in the near future. The Conservative support on June 28th will play a big part in convincing quality Conservatives to throw their hat into the ring next time. I have nothing against Mike Murphy but I would like to see much more competition from well known and respected community leaders in the next nomination race.

2. Don't support strategic voting
I think in the long run it is detrimental to the process. On the large scale it distorts support for party policies and it rewards fear mongering and attacking campaigns.

3. $1.75
My vote is a $1.75 donation to a political party - I don't want it to go to the NDP.

Two good reads.

Margaret Wente's article on Harper's "gaffes" or policies which most Canadians agree with but Martin is attacking (here's the tail end):

Mr. Martin's betting the farm that he's more in touch with mainstream values than Stephen Harper is. But something funny may have happened while he was busy plotting his run on power. Maybe the mainstream has moved on. Maybe it's Mr. Harper who knows where it is.

Earl MacRae in the Ottawa Sun has a column about a soldier's view on Martin's position on military spending and on the Liberal attack ads (here's a paragraphy from it):

The soldier was reacting to a front-page newspaper story he read on the weekend in which Martin, during an interview, attacked Conservative leader Stephen Harper's plans for the Canadian military. Martin, according to the article, saying Harper would impose a warlike "ready aye ready" philosophy that is out of vogue in today's Canadian society.
"I went ballistic. Harper never served, either, but he's a hell of a lot more understanding and realistic as to what the armed forces should be than that ignorant fool Martin. As for outdated, it's old Martin who's outdated. What does he think the role of Canadian soldiers is? To hand out candies? Carry toy guns? Just sit around and watch?

Paul Martin is taking a stroll around Parliament Hill with a senior member of the PMO when he meets a little girl carrying a small basket with a blanket over it. Curious, he says to the girl; "What's in the basket?". She replies;" New baby kittens" and opens the basket to show him. " How nice" said Martin. " What kind are they?". Little girl says, "Liberals". Martin smiles and pats the little girl on the head and they continue on.

About three weeks later, he and another member of his clique are again strolling on Parliament Hill when he sees the little girl again with the same basket. Martin says to his colleague; "Watch this, it's very cute" and they approach the little girl. Martin asks the girl how the kittens are and she says fine. He then says, "What kind of kittens are they?" and she replies, "Conservatives." Somewhat abashed, Martin says, "Three weeks ago you said they were Liberals!" "I know," she says." But now their eyes are open".

I live in Ottawa-Centre - in the Glebe, where Orange and Red signs battle it out on most streets. Yesterday, I finally got a Mike Murphy sign on my lawn - he's the Conservative candidate here.

This morning, I look out the window, it's GONE!

I start thinking about what I should replace it with - maybe a sign that says "Someone stole my sign - Vote Conservative" or "Don't vote for the Thieves, Liars, and Pornographers - the Liberals stole my Conservative sign" - but my wife suggests I take a look around the block and see if it's there.

So, I go out with my two little girls and find the sign in a pond near our place. We fish it out along with an Ed sign a few yards away from ours.

We put the Tory sign back on the front lawn and the Orange sign below it. I'm kind of happy to promote either alternative to the current government as it looks like it's a two horse race in this riding between Martin's buddy Mahoney and Ed. My girls are just happy that we have two signs - nobody else on the street has two!

From Guy Giorno, the chief of staff to former Ontario premier Mike Harris in the Globe:

This is the point of a doomed incumbent's campaign when candidates start to distance themselves from the leader. Remember that at the start of this race I anticipated candidates covering up the reference to Mr. Martin on their lawn signs? It will happen.

All of this makes a majority within reach. My best guess is that the Conservatives are almost there. Given current trends, my current prediction is: Conservative, 150; Liberal, 69; Bloc Québecois, 65; NDP 23 and Independent (Chuck Cadman) 1.

If the movement accelerates, the Conservatives will be in majority territory. And that would carry with it the prospect that the Liberals will finish third, behind the Bloc Québecois.

Fortress Ontario garrison gone.

Read this account from Don Martin on the Liberal bus:

On Thursday morning, Prime Minister Paul Martin jumped the shark in a Tim Hortons in New Hamburg just outside Kitchener Ontario. A wet crowd -- if 20 can be called a crowd -- huddled outside the doughnut store and perhaps another dozen waited inside. One of the tour officials tried his level best to start a “Paul, Paul, Paul” chant as the prime minister’s bus pulled up, but found
no takers. After a brief round of handshakes, Martin told the ‘gathering,’ where journalists and tour staff outnumbered voters by a two-to-one margin, that their town recreation centre would be in jeopardy under a Conservative government -- before he joined in a spontaneous chorus of O Canada.

I am surprised to read Hebert's column this morning which follow her opinions stated on CBC last night:

But if attaining one's specific objectives is ultimately the litmus test of a debate, Martin, who gets to go on to fight another day, did better than Harper, who failed to deal a decisive and potentially fatal blow to his main opponent's campaign last night.

I have to believe that her expectations were so low for Martin that his mediocre performance was sufficient.

Harper is the winner because he proved his capabilities in the one area that the polling numbers were still behind the Liberals - Harper as Prime Minister. Harper didn't need to land a "fatal blow" as Hebert states since that was delivered in Februrary by Sheila Fraser and Martin's campaign team keeps him on the mat. Harper did need to reassure Canadians in his leadership - his Prime Ministerial abilities - and in that aspect he won easily. He was calm when debating ideas - answered more directly the other candidates and was forceful yet respectful when demanding answers to his questions. Martin wouldn't answer the questions instead performing a Stronach in moving to rehearsed lines on certain topics. Martin got visibly frustrated by Layton and was obviously guilty of mispresenting and exagerating Tory positions.

I'll be watching the SES Research numbers on who would make the best PM. If Harper gets momentum in that category, a Conservative majority will occur on June 28th.

I watched the debate last night. Did any of the leaders even listen to the questions that the reporters asked?

Martin performed very well in my opinion - Layton seemed goofy at times (opening and closing remarks) - Harper seemed hesitant.

Looking forward to seeing some better exchanges tonight.

Another question. Why do we have these debates separate? Why don't they just have two debates with either a French portion in both or leave it up to the reporters/leaders to speak in French as they choose?

Shooting Gun
Is the shooting gun in the Liberal ad going get national media attention?
Herle strikes again. If this does get attention in the papers he will be gone.


Reagan
Here's a small blurb from a Reagan speech in 1964 - thought it was interesting...

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.

And the start of Mulroney's eulogy at the funeral...

In the spring of 1987 President Reagan and I were driven into a large hangar at the Ottawa Airport, to await the arrival of Mrs. Reagan and my wife, Mila, prior to departure ceremonies for their return to Washington. We were alone except for the security details.

President Reagan's visit had been important, demanding and successful. Our discussions reflected the international agenda of the times: The nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union and the missile deployment by NATO; pressures in the Warsaw pact, challenges resulting from the Berlin Wall and the ongoing separation of Germany; and bilateral and hemispheric free trade.

President Reagan had spoken to Parliament, handled complex files with skill and good humor -- strongly impressing his Canadian hosts -- and here we were, waiting for our wives.

When their car drove in a moment later, out stepped Nancy and Mila -- looking like a million bucks. As they headed towards us, President Reagan beamed, threw his arm around my shoulder and said with a grin: "You know, Brian, for two Irishmen we sure married up."

Coyne stealing my idea
He wrote about the debates and putting them into the election laws on Saturday. I made a similiar suggestion a week earlier.

His background is described in this Ottawa Citizen article:

Saskatchewan-born and a devout and committed Liberal ever since a teenage chat with Pierre Trudeau, Mr. Herle worked for Liberal MP Ralph Goodale, now Mr. Martin's finance minister, before moving to Montreal to join CSL and eventually on to Ottawa to pursue the political passion he shared with his boss. He joined the Earnscliffe communications and lobbying company in Ottawa that was regarded as almost an extension of the federal finance department during Mr. Martin's decade-long tenure as minister.

Most people are aware of Herle's tactics - shown well before this campaign started...
Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief of CanWest News Service reported this on December 24th last year:

Ms. Copps said Ottawa consultant David Herle, Mr. Martin's senior political aide, threatened her after she rejected a patronage offer to pull out of a nomination fight with Mr. Valeri for the new riding of Hamilton-East-Stoney-Creek.

"I have no intention of stepping down because an advisor to the Prime Minister told me if I do run, he is going to make it very difficult for me. I don't operate that way," she said.

How much power does Herle have in this campaign? In May, Gillian Cosgrove of the Post wrote about future attack ads and how Jack Fleischmann would be heading Red Leaf and reporting directly to Herle:

A sign that a federal election is imminent is the departure on a leave
-of-absence of Jack Fleischmann, a top member of Bell Globemedia's editorial team.

Mr. Fleischmann, who runs Bell Globemedia's ratings-challenged ROBTv business channel, has been hand-picked to mastermind the Liberal party's multi-million-dollar advertising campaign. Bell Globemedia, whose CEO is Liberal fundraiser Ivan Fecan, is controlled by phone giant Bell Canada's parent, BCE Inc.

Mr. Fleischmann, whose TV channel is a sister media outlet of our competitor The Globe and Mail, told colleagues in an internal email he will be absent until after the election supervising Red Leaf, the Liberal party's ad agency.

Previously, he had made it clear that he would only step down temporarily from his senior Globe post when an election was a certainty. As head of Red Leaf, he reports directly to David Herle, uber-boss of the Martin campaign.

When you read some of Herle's statements or listen to him you can hear the same 'all things to all people' technique that Paul Martin used to raise expectations so high. Read this section of a Vancouver Sun article that printed last fall when Martin won the leadership:

His backers also insist that Martin's commitment to the West is sincere, pointing to the many members of his inner circle in Ottawa who have western Canadian roots, including David Herle of Saskatchewan and Michael Robinson and Ruth Thorkelson of Alberta.

Martin, who briefly worked in Alberta in the 1960s for an energy company owned by his mentor, Maurice Strong, (he was fired after crashing a company truck when he went to party at the Calgary Stampede), also has a broad range of politically diverse contacts throughout the four western provinces that he consults regularly.

Among them are B.C. commentator Gordon Gibson, former Saskatchewan New Democratic Party cabinet minister Chris Axworthy, and Winnipeg Mayor Glen Murray.

"I think there is something special about his relationship with the West," according to Herle, who has been a close Martin aide since the 1980s.

"I don't mean by that to imply that he'll be playing favourites in any respect, and I don't think Atlantic Canadians should worry that they'll be lost in the shuffle or anything like that.

"But I think he's made it clear and he's made it a central theme of this campaign that western alienation is a real problem and that there's real structural and policy reasons why westerners feel that they can't count on Ottawa to act in their interest."

And what exactly are Herle's reasons for supporting Martin for a couple of decades?
Here's what the highly respected Frank magazine had to say about it - in talking about the reason why Martin hired Francis Fox as principal secretary for the Martin PMO:

The main rationale for bringing Fox out of his comfortable retirement in the lobby biz seems to be to make up for the shortcomings of Martin's admittedly keen but rather inexperienced chief of staff, little Timmy Murphy.

The obvious choice for the gig was long-term aide Terrie O'Leary, whom Martin assumed would take the job. Imagine Junior's surprise when O'Leary, comfortably ensconced at the World Bank, turned him down flat. Seems those 20-hour work days under the baton of the mercurial Martin no longer appeal.

Martin then turned to Earnscliffe supremo Michael Robinson, transition team quarterback and veteran greaser-of-wheels, who also refused the gig in favour of continuing to trade on his connections for big bucks in the lobby biz.

And so we are left with also-ran Murphy in a job for which it is widely known Martin had others in mind.

Martin's main mistake, say those in the camp of O'Leary and long-term partner David Herle, was assuming the grisly duo worked all those years to get him into office solely out of personal loyalty, underestimating their interest in the simple challenge of pushing a relative unknown into 24 Sussex. Fun's over now.

Not just fun. Herle's motives include revenge of course for Chretienites treatment of John Turner.

In Susan Delacourt's book Juggernaut, there is an account of the key event of the real start of the Chretien revolt - found in this review in Policy Options magazine:

After the media has disclosed the notorious 'secret' meeting of Martin strategists and MPs to plot Chretien's ouster at the Regal Consetallation Hotel near Pearson Airport in 2001, dimunitive (he could have played a Munchkin) Eddie Goldenberg, the PM's alter ego, confronts Herle, Martin's bulk and bearded retainer, at a Liberal conclave.
Goldenberg is livid. The Regal meeting was absolutely wrong, profe of Herle's deceit.
"That's a bit rich coming from you after what you did to John Turner," Herle replies.

Decades of anger. Anger over Chretien's treatment of Turner. Anger over Martin's loss to Chretien. Anger over Chretien's reign. Anger over Copps and others trying to remain in the Liberal fold. Anger over a united opposition. That's what I see when I watch David Herle - an angry person who cannot believe his plan - after so much preparation - is going down the drain.

Paul Martin deserve the blame - he allowed this man to gain so much influence and allowed this team of Earnscliffe workers to alienate so many of the Liberal team.

Compare this to Stephen Harper and the wide variety of backgrounds his campaign team comes from - and ask yourself if Paul Martin has what it takes to lead this country. I don't want David Herle to the most powerful man in Canada.

Introduction

Here's the Stanley Cup edition of the Carnival of the Canucks. I'm Don and this is my blog - All things Canadian... or for some - TalkCanada. Sorry for the old school blogger format. Enjoy the rambling thoughts and links to bloggers who had thoughts about the Flames and other aspects of the greatest game.

Canada's Team

Of course most of Canada was cheering for the Flames but in the words of the Vancouver Canucks Op Ed:

Where does everyone get the idea that all Canadians are rooting for Calgary? Yes, it's true that many of us are, but some of us also still think they're Evil Spawn (ie. total bastards). And there are many, many Canadians who are actually cheering hard for the Bolts.
Not us, but we can sympathize.

Even Edmontonians - the natural rivals - were cheering on the Flames. But some in Alberta have a hard time with Calgary's success - read this explanation from Colby Cosh on why his hockey blogging pretty much stopped:

The reason the page has gone cold is that thinking about and looking at hockey depresses me now. I could just about tolerate a Calgary Flames Stanley Cup, which--it became clear to me halfway through the Western Conference final--is now probably going to happen. I can't tolerate them winning the last Stanley Cup before a possible year-long lockout. The Stanley Cup could end up living in Calgary for two years or more. It's just not right. I can't pretend to participate in Edmonton's sudden love affair with a "Cinderella" team we've always despised.

The other people in Canada who were cheering for the Lightning? Separatists and relatives of the Lightning players - that's it - nobody else.

Oops - The Meatriarchy questioning which team is more Canadian?

I know a lot of people were rooting for Calgary to win the cup because the franchise itself is situated within Canadian borders. By default this led most people to disparage Tampa as an “American” team as if the team was made up entirely of US born players.
Fact is Tampa had 19 Canadian born players to Calgary’s 15 so in a way they were more Canadian than the Canadian team.

Here's an Albertan's final take on it - Don from Revolutionary Moderation - home of the Gaffe-O-Meter:

I can't abide the Stanley Cup living in a city that has never seen naturally-occuring ice.

Pure Hockey Takes

The Hockey Pundits weighed in on the final with this take on the Canadian content:

To console myself, I looked at their roster and see that the Conn Smythe winner(Brad Richards), the regular season points leader (Martin St. Louis) team Captain (Dave Andreychuk) and a total of 15 players for Tampa were Canadian.

Dave Andreychuk was a beautiful sight after the game - his greying beard and all - here's Hockey Nation's recognition (Gotta think Andreychuck will be retiring now.):

Captain Dave Andreychuck, the 40 year newbie in a Stanley Cup was dominant in his checking, frustrating Iginla for most of the night. For Andreychuk it was mission accomplished as he collected his first Stanley Cup ever, finally given a chance to hoist the fabled trophy high above, perhaps for his only time.

Sens Fanblog comments on the Lightning brand of hockey:

The Lightning are a young, skilled, offensive-minded bunch. They play exciting hockey that doesn't involve a whole lot of trapping which is simply amazing to watch. The Ottawa-Tampa games this year were high tempo affairs that kept you on the edge of your seat - exactly the kind of hockey that will rope in new fans. If even one team models itself after Tampa Bay next year, then the NHL will benefit from it.

Did you think the ending was anti-climatic? Puck Update thinks so:

Tampa played a smart, if safe and dull series and deserved the Cup. They just didn't seem horribly relieved or light-hearted after their win.
They must be a bunch of serious guys.
Or maybe it's the humidity in the St. Pete Times Forum.

Jex Golbez saw into the future when he wrote "Note to the Flames: STOP TAKING DUMB PENALTIES!" after the second period - not that the hitting from behind, er, high sticking, er, boarding, er, charging (?) penalty with less than two minutes to go was really a 'bad' penalty on the part of the Flames. I thought it was marginal - St. Louis had his head down looking for the puck - charging? I'm sure we'll see some thoughts on that one in the sports pages.

Random Albertan Takes

DiscoMonkey: Finally, I am totally pissed off at PEI... I couldn't believe the footage of them cheering on the Tampa team because they have a home town guy playing for them. As a Canadian I was embarrassed for them. It is surely going to be in the papers tomorrow.
jenandtonic: STOP BANGING ON THE FUCKING GLASS! No hockey loving fan from a real hockey city that can actually PRODUCE ice outside does that. Stop it.
Ray's World: I've never heard so much honking anywhere, so many red car flags, fireworks going off, breast being shown, and even a guy's ass mooning cars. Yet, I've never seen a community come so close together so quickly.
O'Canada: Losers - Paul Martin said it himself: Les Calgary Flames et les Libéraux, c'est la même chose. [The Calgary Flames and the Liberals, that's the same thing.]
robot guy: For those of you who can't make it to the party (or who live too far away from Calgary), one of the bars on the Red Mile has set up a webcam on their roof; it isn't operational right now, but perhaps come game time it will be. Hey, maybe that webcam will catch a few pickled party poppets showing their..ummm... enthusiasm. (Oh, c'mon, like you've never seen any nudity on the web before)

And that last post transitions nicely into...


FlamesGirls

In the CBC opening introduction yesterday, they showed several very large breasted Calgary fans jumping up and down and then moved to Don Cherry who elegantly stated "I love those lucky bounces!"

Kim Siever of Lethbridge had this conversation with his daughter after seeing a similiar introduction prior to game six:

My five-year-old daughter turns to me and asks, “They’re not dress very modest, are they”?
“No, they’re not”.
“We dress modestly, don’t we”?
“Yes, we do.”

Lots of people have talked about the infamous flamesgirls website - this American (the only non-Canadian blog being linked to today I promise) wrote this:

This series has plenty of interesting subplots.
....
There's the anticipation of trying to predict when flamesgirls.com will finally post a picture of a female who isn't a total skank.

Ouch.

Cherry

Alan didn't get an answer to his question: "I am waiting for the big news during this game 7's first intermission: will or won't he be back?"

But Debbye had some nice things to say about the icon:

The past 23 years with Don Cherry have been a delightful education for me. Like many women, I was somewhat astonished at this flamboyantly dressed man and more than uncomfortable with some of his statements. As my boys grew up, though, I felt relief than discomfort that someone other than their father and I was giving them some straight talk about sportsmanship (never sucker punch a guy from behind, kids,) backing up your teammates, and playing your heart out.

Final touches

Of course, thanks to David Janes for the Carnival - hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I did writing it.
Next week's Carnvial is being hosted by Sean at PolSpy - see you there next week.

The last word to another Albertan - Vicki from Just in From Cowtown - "Next Year".

but the show goes on.

Carnival opens at 11:00AM EST. Need some time to collect some mournful posts - and I'm sure some nice thoughts on seeing Andreychuk, Lecavalier, St. Louis, Richards, and the rest of the Lightning lifting the greatest trophy in professional sports.

Yes, even if it turns out that God is an American and the Lightning win tonight, I will be holding a Cup Carnival tomorrow highlighting bloggers across Canada who have written funny, insightful, or bizarre posts about the final, the Red Mile, politicians supporting Calgary, or Jarome's latest haircut.

I can't wait.

GO FLAMES!

In a comment on Coyne's blog - talking about the new poll and specifically the Ontario numbers:

In my riding of Beaches-East York in "The Beach" community of Toronto, I noticed that on the large campaign signs for our Liberal MP Maria Minna, the words "Team Martin" were cut out...I mean cut out with a box cutter of some kind, leaving a gaping hole in the signage.

Posted to Jim Elve's Group Election Blog

There is a lot of talk, in this election and previous ones, on which leaders should be allowed to be in the debate. Much of the discussion has centred on the criteria that the broadcast consortium (sounds eerie doesn't it) uses to decide who to invite.

Perhaps the debate should be recognized as key aspect of the election process and formalized in the Canada Elections Act and include the criteria or the invited leaders.

It isn't a radical suggestion as C-24, the political financing bill, includes criteria for a party to receive funding:

All qualifying registered parties now receive quarterly allowances from public funds. To be eligible, a party must have received in the general election preceding the quarter:

- at least 2 percent of the valid votes cast, or

- at least 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the electoral districts in which the party endorsed a candidate

What would the criteria be for being included in the debate? Perhaps the following:

- A party receiving at least 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the previous general election.

- Or, a party containing representatives in the House of Commons that received at least 5 percent of the valid votes cast in the previous general election. (would allow the Bloc in 1993, and the new Conservative party in 2004)

That's it - nothing more - nothing less. Sorry Greens - you wouldn't make it this time but next time you'd be in, if you hold up your support according to the polls, even if you didn't get a seat.

Seems like a reasonable, transparent solution to an ongoing issue.

Wow. When Iginla had his helmet taken off in that last shift you just had a feeling that something was going to happen - don't ever take off a guy's helmet - they think they are Superman without it! (Even if the guy had already played 30 minutes!)

And the next game is actually on a Saturday NIGHT! Awesome.

The issue of the inmates voting made me think of this Simpson quote:

"I'll be back. You can't keep the NDP out of 24 Sussex forever. And when they get in, I'm back on the street! With all of my criminal buddies! Ba-ha-ha-ha-ha!!"
- Sideshow Bob

I did a comparison of Stronach and Martin in January - here's a brief look at Martin and Harper growing up...

AGE	Paul Martin	Stephen Harper
0	born before WWII started	born before the Vietnam war
13	watches I Love Lucy and Howdy Doody	watches Gilligan's Island and MASH
16	dreams of driving the Batmobile - 1955 Lincoln Futura Concept Car	dreams of driving a Dodge Charger or Plymouth Duster
19	IBM’s first computer to be shipped with a hard disk drive	5.25" floppy disk becomes industry standard
24	Cuban missle crisis	Terrorist explosion kills 237 US Marines in Beirut

Micheal Wilson, the former PCer, is now saying "I am praying for a majority government, a Liberal majority government".

This seems to be mainly because he is so worried about a Conservative minority government working with the Bloc.

I find it to be about the poorest reason I've heard to hope for a Liberal majority - to pray for the party that stood by to see the separtists almost win the 95 referendum - to pray for the party with the strategy after that referendum to put up Canada flags at Post Office's in Quebec - to pray for the party that has given the Bloc so much strength and the rest of Canada so much doubt about politicians in Ottawa in the sponsorship aftermath.

Wonder why some ridings in Ottawa will get a lot of Conservative supporters - or NDP voters in my Ottawa-Centre riding - read Jay Jardine's take on it:

I have an (il)Liberal mayor that neither I, nor close to 80% of Ottawans endorsed, who promised not to raise taxes, got "elected" and raised my taxes by 3% 6.5% (scratched out on Jay's blog) 10%.

I also have an (il)Liberal premier, who again, neither I, nor almost three-quarters of Ontarians endorsed, who promised not to raise my taxes, then got "elected" and raised my taxes anyway.

We are possibly (hopefully?) in the final month of an (il)Liberal Prime Minister who none of us have formally endorsed, and who, as far as I can tell, is promising not to raise my taxes. Things aren't looking too bright for him right now, but never underestimate the power of 25% of the population to get suckered again. Anyone care to wager that the mobocracy's upcoming "expression of general will" might mean a tax-increase hat trick? I'll bet you my next health care premium on it.

I don't think this will happen as the federal coffers are awash with funds - it's the distribution of these funds that interest me - if you don't have a good plan for the money - and no party has given me reason to think that they need it all - give some of it back to me.

Oh, and having CFRA and the Citizen helps the Tories. As Todd White (Senators player) said on a CFRA ad promoting the morning host Steve Maddeley - 'everyone needs a good right winger!"

This is Martin's new answer to the sponsorship scandal. He says that Canadian's want to know where the buck stops - and it stops here - with the PM.

Actually Paul, Canadians want to know where the money went, who benefited, and what is going to happen to them.

The buck stops here - what kind of Canada do you want - the beer commercial PM continues.

Today's Carnival is hosted by Jen at Circadian Shift.

I'm holding a special Stanley Cup edition of the Carnival next week - here's hoping for a Calgary Carnival!

I'm going to be on the lookout for those that cleverly combine my two interests - hockey and politics - as Bart did in this post:

Here’s a little theory I worked out which I feel offers an infallible system for determining election winners and Stanley Cup champions.

The last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup was in 1993 when the Montreal Canadiens took it. This corresponds to the year that Jean Chretien, a Quebec born Liberal leader (which is the traditional party of Quebec for all intents and purposes) first became Prime Minister. In the years prior to this, it had been the Alberta teams who dominated with Edmonton winning Cups in ’84, ’85, ’87, ’88, and ’90 and Calgary winning in ’89. During this time, the Western based Conservative party held office, with massive majority governments. However, since the Conservatives were reduced to 2 seats in ’93, the Alberta teams have struggled year in and year out, displaying as much ineptitude as the federal Tories. It should also be noted that the first year the Oilers won a Cup was 1984, the same year when Brian Mulroney won his majority government.
.... (see the full post for further analysis!)

If the Flames lose, I’d gamble on minority but if the Flames win, I think a majority government may be in the cards.

I'm sure some would take exception to the phrase "Western based Conservative party" when talking about Mulroney's Conservatives but a great take regardless!

GO FLAMES!