What Our Media Doesn't Understand About Feminism Makes Rona Ambrose Look Enlightened

During last weekend's Conservative Party convention, interim leader Rona Ambrose suggested that Justin Trudeau was not our first "female" Prime Minister, but that that distinction went to Kim Campbell.

It was met with a round of applause, resonating with the conservative crowd, but not so much with the Canadian public, who saw it as just another opposition cheap shot, born of envy.

She would later deny she said it, or claim that her comment was misinterpreted, but we've seen the video.  There's no backing out now.

However, her closing remark is even more telling.  "So who's the feminist now!?"  Certainly not Rona Ambrose, because you don't have to be a female to be a feminist, any more than you have to be a feminist to be female.  Today, it's about a state of mind.

In fact, for the new generation of millennials, it's more about sexism in general, not just women's rights, which they already enjoy.  Income inequality is still an issue, but they will find the solution, and they will do it because it just makes sense.

Looking at the U.S. Primaries, when the country seems poised to elect their first woman president, it should not be such a shock to anyone that the majority of young women plan to vote for Bernie Sanders, rather than Hillary Clinton. They don't care about gender, but that Sanders has a better understanding of the problems that impact their lives, while Clinton represents "the establishment.”

In Ambrose's speech, she lauded previous women Conservative trail blazers (none of whom belonged to her party which was formed in 2003).  However, to millennials, these names or their accomplishments would mean little.  They don't have to look to female leaders of the past.  They see female leaders everyday, and that's a good thing.  It means that women of my generation have done our jobs.

What they heard from Ambrose would sound like words from the parents in the Peanuts cartoon: "mwa-mwa-mwa"

This is what the opposition and indeed the Canadian media, don't understand about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  He is the epitome of the modern feminist.  You don't have to be macho to be masculine, but you can be.  You don't have to be a female to be a feminist, but you can be.  It's all about equality and doing what's best for you.

In the United States millennials now outnumber baby boomers, and in Canada, they now represent the majority in the workplace.

The media and politicians, must adapt to this new reality or step aside.  Of course Trudeau won the "elbowgate" debate.  He was having "a dad moment".  Young parents could relate.  But modern feminists could not relate to the aftermath.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau came along at the right time, as we baby boomers were coming of age.  We were also anti-establishment and viewed his antics through a different lens than the media and his political opponents.  The same is happening today with his son.

At the Conservative convention they have now embraced the baby boomer generation, even quoting PET's famous remarks about staying out of the bedrooms, but it's half a century too late.  We've moved on.  

Our children and grandchildren did not grow up with the aproned women chained to the kitchen.  They grew up with us.  

Now it's time for the media and members of the opposition parties to just grow up.

The NDP Must Stop Victimizing Women if They Hope to be Taken Seriously Again

In early December 2012, the Toronto Star reported:  Near-brawl erupts in Commons between Tory Peter Van Loan and NDP’s Nathan Cullen 

Apparently Van Loan was upset with the NDP's delaying tactics on getting the Conservative budget measures passed, and crossed the floor to the NDP caucus, pointing his finger and shouting obscenities.

In typical fashion, Thomas Mulcair began shouting obscenities back, and things could have gotten out of control, had not members of both parties stepped in to defuse the situation.  Then Speaker, Andrew Scheer, did nothing.

According to Van Loan, members of his party only left their seats, fearing for his safety; and according to Nathan Cullen, his only concern was for the women folk. 

Had a bench clearing brawl erupted, we can assume that only those wanting to engage would jump the boards and everyone else would scatter.  He should not have dragged gender into this.  What Van Loan and Mulcair did was wrong.  They created an unsafe and uncomfortable working environment for everyone.

Last week we witnessed a similar situation in what has been dubbed Elbowgate.

This time the obstructionism was more evident as several NDP members tried to delay the vote on Assisted Dying legislation, by preventing Conservative Whip Gord Brown from making his way to the Speaker.  Given that the clock was running out, the Prime Minister left his seat to move things along.

He was angry.  He cursed.  He was wrong.

During this brief encounter, NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brousseau, who had moved up behind him, got bumped.  She stepped back to her bench, laughing and then made a gesture like she had been injured.  

However, the issue here is not whether she was indeed hurt, or to what degree.  It's not even about whether or not she took a dive, as many believe she did.

It is about what we know did NOT happen.

She was NOT sexually assaulted.  She was NOT molested.  And she was NOT the victim of intentional violence.  She pushed against Prime Minister Trudeau.  He did not seek her out.

But that didn't stop the Opposition members from turning this into a three ring circus, making it all about violence against women and putting the lives of female MPs in grave danger.  Women must feel safe when they go to work, they insisted.

When did women become so fragile that we needed this kind of protection? When things like this occur in the workplace, they are disconcerting to everyone.  Believe it or not, we've heard the "f" word before and many of us like contact sports, including boxing.

Our female Members of Parliament come from varied backgrounds.  They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, business people et al.  Many rose to the tops of their professions and no doubt took an elbow or two in the course of their careers.  Singling them out as frail individuals is misogynistic.  Feminism run amok.

As feminist blogger Rachel Edwards says:

"While feminists say that feminism is about equality, actions speak louder than words. These actions suggest an uncomfortable truth. Feminism is not the assumption that we are equal, but the assumption that women are weak... "

Had the NDP stuck to the narrative that Justin Trudeau should not have lost his temper and should not have left his seat to physically move Brown through the NDP wall, they would have come out on top.  But by making it about violence against women, they lost all credibility and the public turned on them.

Not just Liberal supporters, but all women who know what sexual assault and violence against them really is.  Also many men who are tired of always being painted as "perverts, bullies and misogynists"

Unfortunately, most of the anger was directed at Brousseau, while it should have gone to those who victimized her for political gain.

I know I also found myself upset with the MP, especially after viewing the video, but have since realized that she only played a small role in this farce. What I also noticed from the video, was how easy it would have been for Brown to go around, instead of continuing to try to go through.  Sure looked liked a set up.

I also discovered from following social media, that many of the people decrying the bullying of Brousseau, are the same ones who bullied Sophie Gregoire Trudeau, just a week ago; so clearly this was not about protecting women.

NDP MP and self proclaimed feminist Niki Ashton, epitomizes what is wrong with feminism today.  She led the charge against Sophie Trudeau when she asked for help in performing her duties, by suggesting that no one asked her to do anything.

Something women have heard for decades,  if not centuries.  "No one asked you to have those children".  "No one asked you to join a male dominated profession".  "You brought this on yourself".  

In November, Ashton had criticized the prime minister's wife for taking her son Hadrian along on an official visit, despite the fact that he was still breast feeding.

Feminists need to step back and ask themselves what they are hoping to accomplish and pseudo-feminists need to stop assuming that they know. Only then will we be taken seriously.

What Was This Really About?

I was quite taken aback by several well known Canadian journalists and pundits, who shared stories on Twitter from international news outlets about the incident.  They appeared giddy over the fact that this might tarnish Justin Trudeau's reputation on the international stage.  How is this a good thing?

Do they detest him that much that they fail to see that it would also be our country's image that would suffer?

I doubt it will have much of an impact, but it does shed a light on the true nature of all the uproar.

So instead of #PrayForSophie #Nannygate or #elbowgate let's just use one to cover everything.

#TrudeausJustTooDamnPopularGate

Sophie Trudeau is no Betty Boop But Opposition Fast Becoming Other Cartoon Characters

In 2013, John Avarosis wrote a piece: Why do Republicans so hate Michelle Obama?  

In it he discusses the obsession that American conservatives have with the First Lady, or what has been referred to as 'Michelle Derangement Syndrome'; believing that they would prefer a Betty Boop, to an accomplished and articulate woman.

However, as Avarosis points out, they are simply playing to the "fringe masses" that now control the Republicans.

We witness the same thing with Canada's Conservative Party.  They may not believe all of the nonsense they spew, but it riles up their fringe mass, who take to social media with some of the most vile attacks on anything Liberal.

In Parliament, the CPC do not act like the Opposition, but more like obstructionists, attacking everything Prime Minister Trudeau says or does, just for the sake of attacking it.  Red meat for their base.

So it was no surprise when this week they extended their assaults to his mother and then his wife.  Whoop, whoop!  

What was a surprise, was that the NDP joined the fray.  MP Niki Ashton boasted of dissing Mrs. Trudeau  on her Facebook page, prompting this response:

Her childish behaviour was in response to our Prime Minister wanting his wife to have a small staff to help her perform her duties.  Nothing new.  Mila Mulroney had a suite of four staffed offices and Laureen Harper, an entourage of tax payer funded employees.

They should have a staff and frankly I'm surprised that this was never mandated.

Ashton quipped that nobody asked Sophie Trudeau to get involved, but Canadians certainly expect her to.  When she travels with her husband, she plays an important role, just as others before her.

Laureen Harper helped to soften our image, in contrast to her robotic and often bullying, husband.  Mila Mulroney was a perfect hostess, and while she never really championed* important causes, she was beautiful and gracious, and made us proud.

Canadians could not have asked for a better symbol of Canada and Canadian values than Sophie Gregoire Trudeau.  She is not only beautiful, stylish and gracious, but she is a true humanitarian.

Her work on mental health issues and empowering women, has won her awards, so her potential contributions are enormous.  Let's give her an office and a staff and the respect she deserves.

Like Michelle Obama, she is no Betty Boop, but I do see Ashton as Wile E Coyote, riding an Acme rocket trying to catch her.  This will not end well for the NDP. 

*Advocate for Cystic Fibrosis

Thomas Mulcair is Only a Symptom of a Much Bigger Problem for the NDP

"The party got off to a bad start with its election promise to balance the budget without raising taxes. That promise, difficult to honour during a period of general economic turmoil, would seriously limit its policy options."

That quote, though fitting, was not about the last federal election, but was written about the Nova Scotia NDP,  that got trounced after just one mandate.  The author, Howard Epstein,  was a long serving NDP MLA who wrote the book:  Hope betrayed? The Nova Scotia NDP's rocky fall from power.

Epstein asks:  "If the NDP can't differentiate itself from other parties, should it exist?"

That is a very good question.  Federally, they are now back to third party status, in a Liberal majority, with a progressive platform; what will their role be?  How can they possibly hope to rebuild when they have nothing to rebuild on?

Their appointment of the right-wing Thomas Mulcair as leader, and their disastrous election campaign, has left them rudderless.

Social activist Michael Laxer, on his The Left Chapter blog, also puts much of the blame on the NDP themselves, but sees their refusal to take responsibility as a major hindrance.  They can't accept that they did anything wrong, but instead call for blind devotion and solidarity.

Solidarity that will be hard to achieve, when the true believers; the activists who coalesced around the NDP, have, as Laxer points out; already left.  Or truthfully, were banished.

Covering the NDP leadership convention, John Ibbitson wrote:

Make no mistake about the importance of what happened in Toronto last weekend: Tens of thousands of New Democrats rebelled against the party establishment – a cabal of union leaders, academics, journalists and party apparatchiks – to elect an outsider. 

They did it, in the words of one NDP supporter who was at the convention, because they no longer wanted to be led by “a comfy sweater.” Mr. Mulcair and Brian Topp, who finished second, were both seen as bare-knuckle politicians who could take on the Conservatives and win.

They forgot that it was the "cabal of union leaders, academics, journalists and party apparatchiks" who helped to build the NDP.

Another social activist and NDP team builder, Murray Dobbin, wrote of Mulcair's leadership victory:

"Facing a ruthless tough guy? Get your own ruthless tough guy. And possibly create a monster you can't control. It is as if policy, philosophy, and vision for the country have simply been devalued to the point where they are an afterthought or some vaguely interesting historical relic."

They are no longer facing a "ruthless tough guy" so do they really need Mulcair now?  Not that it really matters, because without their activist base, who are they?

Those activists can now work with Justin Trudeau, to build the kind of Canada that we want to live in, since the NDP are no longer in a position to do much of anything.

And as CTV points out, there is still the matter of the 2.7 million dollars owed by current and defeated MPs, and with no money to fight the decision in court, this could very well spell the end of the NDP.

Even a petition to demand the resignation of Mulcair, is getting very little traction.  It's like they no longer care.  Why should they?

The emphasis will be on the Liberals and Justin Trudeau as they work to repair the damage done by the Harper government.

And with Trudeau, all comfy sweaters are welcome.

How Thomas Mulcair Made Clap Trap a Human Right

Pick a debate, any debate, and Thomas Mulcair will find a way to bring up the "fact" that he reduced GHG emissions every year that he was the environment minister in Quebec, and that he was responsible for putting a clean environment as a right into Quebec's charter.

Of course, he will also say that he did not  promote the sale of bulk water, despite video evidence.  That video got the most re-tweets during last night's French language leaders debate.

However, that lie is pretty tame, compared to his other whoppers.  Let's compare:

Did GHG Emissions really go Down Under His Stewardship?

In the 2012-13 Quebec government budget report, there is a section Quebec and Climate Change: A Greener Environment. As part of this they produce a graph.

Thomas Mulcair was Quebec Environment minister from 2003 to early 2006, but never drafted a Green Plan until 2004, and never actually acted on anything, favourable to the environment.  So his policies (?) had no impact on reducing GHG,  but in fact, one in particular, caused a spike.

This was the result of the TransCanada Energy’s combined cycle gas turbine in Becancour, a project he approved in 2004. The generating station was Quebec’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in 2007.  (Wikipedia)

When Mulcair put his stamp of approval on the project, he had to break the rules established by his own government, since it would not meet the necessary requirements.

According to Mr. Paul-Yannick Laquerre, deputy chief of staff to Environment Minister Thomas Mulcair, the regulations would not apply to the project of Bécancour. Me Laquerre argued that the Régie de l'énergie approved the draft Bécancour on August 23, several months before the adoption of the Regulation ...

It was eventually scrapped and Hydro Quebec was forced to pay the company 250 million dollars just to get rid of it. 

So in fact, Thomas Mulcair did not reduce GHG, but increased it.  

The Promotion of Sustainable Development

When Yves Séguin resigned as minister of finance in 2005, Thomas Mulcair had hoped to take his place. However, Jean Charest chose someone else.  Mulcair went into one of his famous sulks (see political cartoon above), but did a sulk cause Charest to expand Mulcair's ministry to include sustainable development and parks, which put him in charge of construction projects?  Not a promotion, but certainly more power.

This meant that in spite of the announcement that he would finally present a  long awaited "Green Plan", environmentalists were sceptical, and they were right to be, since they soon learned that it was not so much a plan for the environment, as a way of getting around environmental concerns, to aid the construction industry.

In 2012, the Research Quebec Group of Ecologists (RQGE), published a 250 page report for their thirtieth anniversary, in which they detailed their experiences with Thomas Mulcair, during some of their darkest days.

These are some of the things they revealed about his tenure in the Charest government.

1. In 2004, Mulcair announced massive cuts to environmental programs and to groups receiving funding for reseach and public awareness. (p. 220)

2. After meeting with minister Mulcair, whose attitude was less than cordial, environmentalist knew that they would have a different relationship with this government. One that would be more combative in nature. (p146) When the Ministry of Environment became the Ministry of Sustainable Development, and Parks; they noted that "sustainable development" was a new code phrase for skirting environmental protection. RQGE sent out a newsletter warning that with the drastic funding cuts and new policies that put industry first, their very existence was in jeopardy. (p152)

3.  RQGE harshly criticized the "contempt Mulcair displayed" to environmental groups. "In a statement published in winter 2005, and with the support of Advisory Committee of independent community action which at that moment was " about 4000 action groups in the Community in Quebec, and called for "the immediate restoration of financing programs that would enable groups to fulfill their mission of defending the rights of the environment." (p159)

4. ... "environmentalists and community networks denounce the forced closure of several citizens groups fighting the environment, consequence of the abolition by the Minister Mulcair of all their funding programs". This was done so that he could replace their work with "partner companies" [public private partnerships] " They now knew why Mulcair appointed William Cosgrove,  (p157) "Chairman of the World Council water and a champion of private and PPP  and asked how Mulcair could "claim to focus his choices and actions towards a sustainable development when appointing a fervent defender of private interests at the head of a provincial organization." (p166)

5.  They also speak of Mulcair's arrogance:  "... he stubbornly refused to meet anyone" and , "The attitude of the Minister Mulcair is unacceptable, even contemptuous, against groups whose survival is threatened by abolishing funding programs "  According to the Director of RQGE Ronald O'Narey, "The minister openly displays his prejudice favourable to the groups that are working directly and measurably in the field and appears biased against groups who issue opinions and comments on everything that contradict his". (p160)

6.  They determined that Mulcair's Green Plan was "a facade that hid the true intentions of the government" where economic interests would outweigh environmental concerns. (p. 220)

7.  When groups began to openly criticize Mulcair they were "... threatened with a SLAPP, and since many were now "completely penniless, since the cuts of Mulcair", they would not be able to defend themselves.

Mulcair did not disappoint the construction industry though:

Finally the new Ministry of Sustainable Development under Thomas Mulcair, is off to a terrible start. I received an email from the transportation department last week, Informing me that a projected bridge linking Laval and Montreal at 25 Highway, was part of the government's Plan for sustainable development. This bridge, will sacrifice 2,000 acres of farm land to urban sprawl in Laval, allow 150,000 more cars to enter Montreal each day and funnel off government funds that are desperately needed for public transport.  Sustainable development is anything but objective... (Charest's sinking ship: After only two years in power, the Liberals are going down, Arthur Sandborn, The Montreal Gazette, April 13, 2005)

The bridge that Mulcair approved was dubbed "Mulcair's Bridge" and Highway 25, was a  PPP project. This money was supposed to be earmarked for a commuter service.

Does this sound like a record to be proud of?  We hear Mulcair mention "sustainable development" many times, but let's not be fooled.  Just as "choice" means private, in conservative speak, this means locking arms with the construction industry, and destroying all environmental protections that get in their way.

Oh, and That Human Rights Thingy

Another claim made by Mulcair is that he entrenched the right to a clean environment into Quebec's charter of rights and freedoms, but it was a sham.  It reads "Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved, to the extent and according to the standards provided by law."

It doesn't say that laws must protect the right to live in a healthful environment, only that governments must enact their own environmental laws.  They could have none at all and still respect the charter.

Is Mulcair a pathological liar?  Perhaps.  But fortunately, there is a cure for that.  Let him retire on October 20.  This country cannot afford another anti-environment prime minister.

About Race, Misogyny, Music and Fathers. Where Do I Start?

Recently, during an Up the Debate leaders forum on women's issues, Justin Trudeau was asked  about what causes misogyny in young men.  He answered

“I don’t know where exactly to point my finger.  I think there’s probably an awful lot of factors that come together to shape societal behaviour — whether it’s certain types of music? There’s a lot of misogyny in, you know, certain types of music. There’s issues around pornography and its prevalence now and its accessibility, which is something I’m really wrapping my head around as a father of kids who are approaching their teen years. And there’s also just the shifting parental roles as well. There’s a lot of communities in which fathers are less present than they have been or they might be in the past, and there’s more need to have engaged positive role models.”

In the videotape, the original question concerning misogyny and young men, was edited out, and replaced with a question about the causes of violence against women.

Paula Simons, in her piece for the National Post, focused on racial stereotyping,  using journalist Desmond Cole's accusations that Trudeau was talking about black people, when he referenced music.  Simons also claims that one "could equally well hear those words as a reference to domestic violence in the aboriginal community."

It is risky to stir up racial hatred, when many communities are working so hard to fight violence against women.  Both the Liberals and NDP have promised such help, and for all the narrow mindedness of the Harper government, they have delivered, though not nearly enough.

The Cree Women of Eeyou Istchee Association, is just one group fighting gender inequality and tackling the sensitive subject of male aggression.  And they are doing it by involving men, so that the healing process can begin.

If we are not allowed to talk about this in an intelligent manner, how can we justify funding for something that we don't want to believe exists?  Community leaders are the best to gauge what they need, not race activists or journalists.

Desmond Cole took to Twitter, even setting up a separate thread to discuss Justin Trudeau.  Why did we allow this man to hijack such an important issue?  This was supposed to be about women and gender inequality, not him and his own causes.  Racism is an important topic, but this was not about race.  Our concerns have now been lost. I'm hoping this was not the intent, though I think it was more about partisanship.

Music and Rape Culture

In a piece The Lines Are Never Blurred, on the feminist site I am a Woman, I am Not a Man, But I am Equal to No One, the topic was rape culture and music.

One of the most dangerous results of a patriarchal society is the presence of a rape culture. This term refers to “practices which excuse, normalize, or even promote rape or sexual violence,” especially against women Rape culture includes both “institutional sexism” in the government and misogyny in pop culture

...Pop culture is another area where rape culture is clear and evident. Popular music, especially that written by men, often refers to women as “hoes,” “bitches,” and “sluts.” Performers such as Eminem, Flo Rida, and Robin Thicke rap and sing about how they would like to sleep with the females in their songs, yet they objectify and insult the objects of their lust. The song “Blurred Lines,” by Robin Thicke, is full of references to non-consensual sex and other characteristics of rape culture, and is a prime example of how popular the objectification of women and the trivialization of rape has become. The lyrics of “Blurred Lines,” as well as the lyrics of other songs by equally popular artists, encourage a misogynistic attitude by promoting messages straight from the mouths of rapists and those who make excuses for them.

Those are the words of a feminist, and for the record, Eminem and Robin Thicke, are both white. She does not see this as a race issue but blames it on "the male-dominated rap music industry".

Of course it's not just rap music, but many genres that objectify women. The Artiface, in a piece about pop culture and violence against women, singles out Maroon Five, and their song Animal.

In a 2010 piece for the Toronto Star, Antonia Zerbisias, discusses the influence of television, advertising and music, that promote a rape culture.

"There are rape jokes. Rape songs. Music videos that covey a sense of sexual entitlement to men while portraying women as insatiable, available."

She is certainly not being racist, even if somehow we are supposed to conclude that she means black rappers.

We have to remember that Justin Trudeau is not just a politician, but is also a father. However, he did not get his talking points from Bigots R Us, but from the writings of feminists, who have been sounding the alarm for years. He may have also learned a lot from his wife Sophie Gregoire, who won recognition from the  UN Women National Committee  Canada, for her "volunteer and activist work on mental health, eating disorders as well as for women- and children-related issues."

To suggest that Justin Trudeau is racist, or has minimized issues facing women, is ridiculous.  Any media ignoring the intent of the debate, and making it all about unfounded racism, is as Zerbiasis suggests, just feeding into the culture.  I hope she gives them hell.

And About That Fatherhood Thing

In Chicago, in February of 2013; President Obama gave a speech that raised a few eyebrows. In it he said: “there are entire neighborhoods where young people, they don’t see an example of somebody succeeding. And for a lot of young boys and young men, in particular, they don’t see an example of Fathers or grandfathers, uncles, who are in a position to support families and be held up and respected.”

Both liberals and conservatives alike, attacked what they saw as a patriarchal attitude. However, it launched a movement This Is Fatherhood ” that includes some very high profile, and dare I say African American, public figures. They are not saying that women can't raise children on their own, only that fathers need to be more accountable, and that male role models need to step up and show by example, how women and girls should be treated.

The prime minister, is not our parent and their government not our keepers.  We need individual communities, regardless of race or creed, to lobby for designated funds to promote gender equality, and speak out against rape culture and violence.  Only they know what is needed and how best to deal with it.

That is not to say, that violence does not occur in homes across the country, which is why we need to address things like income equality, poverty, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.   If a woman is financially dependent on her mate,  she may feel trapped and more willing to take abuse.

None of these things can be handled in one debate, especially when the concerns raised during that debate, have been lost.  But at least it brings these things to the forefront during this election campaign.  Or at least it would have, if it hadn't been hi-jacked by someone with their own agenda, and a media preferring sensationalism to honest reporting.

And we wonder why they don't take us seriously.

The NDP's Obsession With Justin Trudeau Could be Their Undoing

“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”  - Franklin D Roosevelt

Just hours before the Globe and Mail debates on the economy, a story surfaced suggesting that Justin Trudeau was in trouble in Papineau.  It started out as "may be" but then quickly changed to "is"' as the results of a poll were released.

This sampling suggested that Trudeau's NDP opponent, Anne Legace Dowson (shown above), was 11 points ahead, worrisome if it were true, but it wasn't.  Turns out that it was the NDP who commissioned the poll of 375 people, and that 86% of those they contacted, were NDP supporters.

We can certainly understand the party's deception, but why would the media go along?

Canada's polling industry is now worried that this fraudulent survey, that garnered such sensational headlines, will further damage their reputation.  It was clearly used to throw Justin Trudeau off his game.  His anger did show through, and at times he appeared frantic, that evening, but was still able to get his points across, and the Globe and Mail gave him the win for the best economic vision.

What was supposed to drive voters away from the Liberal Party, and to the NDP, backfired, and they may have lost support from both pollsters and the press, who are less than thrilled that they were dragged down with them.

So Who is This "Star" Candidate?

In 2008, Anne Legace Dowson was introduced to the voting public, by way of a spread published in a Quebec newspaper.  In it she compared herself to Barack Obama, and according to the paper, everyone thought of her as “the Oprah of Quebec”.

However, one letter to the editor, questioned this, given that they had never even heard of her "until the media pumped her up".

I was born and bred in Montreal and consider myself pretty well up to date on who’s who in this city…. but I’ve never heard of this Anne Lagace Dowson until yesterday. That was the day the Montreal Gazette wrote a huge half page story about her nomination.  

Today’s supper time local news on ALL the networks had wide coverage of her……it seems like they are trying to make her into the winner before the by-election date has even been set.  

She has a radio show on the local CBC station. I think that explains why I’ve never heard of her.  CBC english radio usually pulls in between 4 and 8 percent of the english speaking audience….in other words between 92 and 96% of anglo Montrealers NEVER listen to it..!!!!

Legace Dowson was running against Marc Garneau in Westmount, and with the media hype, the prediction was a tight Liberal/NDP race.  However, although outspending Garneau, the results were much different than anticipated.

She didn't compete in 2011, instead focusing on local politics.  In 2014 she ran for the seat of commissioner for the English school board.  It was an important election, since the very existence of school boards was on the line.  The minister of education made it clear, that if there wasn't more voter interest, he would pull the plug on them.

Legace Dowson led a team of ten, against her opponent's ten, representing the wards in the school board district.  She only managed success in two of the ten, one after a recount, by a handful of votes.  She claimed that there was election tampering, though her arguments were weak.

In fact, one of her people actually misrepresented themselves, to obtain voter information, and the police had to be called.  It was crazy.  The unnecessary drama and feeble campaigning, that garnered just 20% support, hardly makes her a star.  At least not in any galaxy I know of.

Given this desperate attempt to make her look better than she is, and more popular than she is; we can only conclude that the NDP are aware of this.  If she can't even come close in a school board election .....

On the bright side. Quebecor knows who she is.  That's something I guess.

Justin Trudeau Forges Tight Alliances

While both the Conservatives and NDP have been relentlessly attacking Trudeau, a strange phenomenon has occurred.  Instead of Thomas Mulcair presenting himself as an alternative to Harper, he now appears to be an ally.

Both are committed to balanced budgets, as unrealistic as that is, and both are now committed to the F-35s, simply because Trudeau has promised to scrap them.  This puts him with progressives, who also want the procurement stopped, as do many members of the Canadian military, including General Leslie.

Yes, the NDP will argue that Mulcair only wants a better bidding process, but the headlines of Mulcair and Harper opposing Trudeau's stance, make the two appear as comrades in arms.  Not what either of them want, though it will not harm Harper as much as Mulcair.

In trying so hard to discredit the Liberal leader, the NDP have failed to give the voting public a reason to support them.  Their platform is weak and financial plan seriously flawed.  They produced a nice glossy folder with nothing in it, but gobblygook.

They had hoped to ride the  C-51 bus to Election Day, but the wheels fell off.  Hope they at least turned off the engine.

Trudeau's strategy, once thought dangerous, has proven to be brilliant.  He has set himself apart from Harper and Mulcair, by claiming that deficits are Ok, F-35s aren't and high income earners should pay more taxes, so that everyone else can pay less.

He is being judged by the enemies he has made, as Roosevelt opined, and those enemies are looking more like a united front, than competition against each other for the prime minister's job.

So who's "not ready" now?