What Are You Doing Inside?

It's Saturday, for heaven's sake ... get out there and forget about politics for the night!

Oh, all right: I can't entirely do it, either. So here's a link to the best smackdown of PM Martin I've seen in a bit. No surprise, it's from Andrew Coyne.

More later.


Calm. DOWN.

Look, I wasn't turning cartwheels when the polls had the CPC up by 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever. I'm hardly going to start crying in my beer now. Being up in the polls is great. Being down isn't, as much.

However, being tied, at worst, means that my team's in the game, despite Martin's speech, and despite the basket o' goodies he and Jolly Jack are spreading around.

And you know what? (and this is to the CPC'ers out there - but the rest of you are welcome to listen in:) If we aren't doing well enough; if Paul's pitch for a 10-month campaign is getting some traction (as I feared it would); if people arent ready to vote for us yet; if people are having second thoughts ... don't blame - persuade!

It was either Coyne or Wells (or maybe both-I'm on my way out and I don't have time to check), but somebody made the point that some conservatives in the blogosphere are talking like those kooks at Democratic Underground, who are still ranting about how ol' Chimpy Bu$hCo. stole the election in '04 and '00 (and yes, I'm being ironic when I use the term, since I'm part of that huge 4% or whatever it was of Canadians who'd vote for him over Gore or Kerry). Bellowing "the Canadian people are a bunch of sheep and don't deserve our wise leadership" isn't exactly going to win you a lot of votes, y'know?

Whether the election is in May, June, February '06, or whenever, remember that this ball game is still in the early innings.

(Now, watch me forget all that good advice when the next poll has the CPC up 10 points!)

More later.


You Can Check Out Anytime You Like, But You Can Never Leave ...

One more thing: I can't help noticing that, as this story indicates, the Lib-NDP deal was struck at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto.

Such a shame, really - the Royal York is a classy, historical place. A deal this sordid should have been consumated at some sleazy no-tell-motel on the edge of town.

More later.

Buzz Off!

Yes, I still have work to do. Yes, I'm shirking said work while writing this. What's it to ya?

Besides, this'll be quick. I just had to point something out regarding the Triple Entente (LPC-NDP-CAW - and that's in reverse order of influence, apparently).

It says here (a subscription may be required) that Buzz Hargrove told Layton that if he didn't cut a deal with Martin, and voted instead with the heathen Tories, Layton would regret it. Here's a brief excerpt (hopefully brief enough to keep me from getting sued):

Organized labour [i.e., Buzz] pushed the deal aggressively, threatening to withdraw its support for the New Democrats if Mr. Layton favoured an early election.

Pardon the impudent question, but what exactly did "organized labour" in general or the CAW in particular deliver to Layton and the NDP in the last election? Having the CAW bosses on board didn't exactly deliver this riding to the NDP, now did it? (I admit, it was a near-run thing, but still, close only counts in horseshoes & c., and besides which, the NDP hasn't won it since Ed Broadbent left town back in '90.)

For that matter, it's worth noting that amongst parties represented in Parliament, the NDP finished dead last in the popular vote in '04, just as it did in pretty much every election since it was founded (the NDP probably did beat Social Credit in terms of the pop. vote when the latter still elected MP's - I just don't have time to check). So for all that the union leaders talk about the NDP, it looks like the rank & file are pulling in other directions.

Now, yes, I'm sure the unions provide money (although not as much as before, thanks to the new laws), organizers, volunteers, etc. to NDP campaigns. But for heaven's sake, let's say that the NDP did help bring down the current bunch of bad eggs - would Buzz et al. really just stay home, and not try to get New Democrats elected, especially when their numbers were looking better than before?

More later.

Back To Being Busy ...

Well, there's lots going on, but I'm up to my neck in work, so I'll have to hold my thoughts for a bit. Over there on the right hand side of the page are blogs aplenty. They'll keep you occupied & entertained till I get back, I'm sure.

More later.


Goodale, Again ...

Paul Wells hits the nail right on the head, and does so much more effectively than my wanderings earlier today (which is only fair, since he's paid for it, and I'm ranting for free!).

Granted, Martin was never stuck in a minority situation while he was Minister of Finance. And I have no doubt that if Chretien had found himself in a minority after, say, '97 (he almost was, don't you know) he would have done whatever needed to be done to keep the top job (of course, he probably would've been successful, unlike - probably - the guy doing it now).

Believe me, I'm no member of the Chretien fan club. I would start in on why, but I'd be here all night. But of course, St. Paul was supposed to be so much better than Jean, wasn't he? And yet, here he is, making his Finance Minister look like a chump. Yet another reason to say "Well done, Mr Martin. Well done."

More later.

Promises Made, Promises Kept (for at least 20 minutes)

You know that CBC story I linked to in my last post? Do me a favour and hit it again.

No, I'm not being paid by the CBC to boost their hit count (probably because the idea of paying people to do so hasn't crossed their minds yet over at the CBC). The reason why is, once you get past Goodale's cringe-worthy performance (if he's willing to say he isn't thrilled on the record, imagine what he's thinking on the inside), you'll come to this little quote, from the Prime Minister (no, not Layton - the other one):

Meanwhile, Martin said Wednesday he will push ahead with tax cuts for big corporations despite his budget deal with the NDP, as long as the Conservatives support the move.

"We have pulled the large corporate tax cuts out of this budget to be pursued in a separate piece of legislation," Martin said in an interview with the Canadian Press in Ottawa.

Here's just a couple of thoughts to keep you warm:

1. Does Jack know about this?

2. Remember when the Tories had the unmitigated gall to suggest that the new "Atlantic Accord" deal between the feds, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland & Labrador be pulled out of the budget, so that it could be passed post-haste in a "separate piece of legislation"? I'll give you 3 guesses to guess what the Liberals' response to that suggestion was, but you'll only need one.

You know, at some point, the line between actions that are "desperate", and actions that are "farcical" is crossed. As far as Paul Martin is concerned, if we had not hit that line before, we've blown past it now.

More later.

This I Don't Understand ...

As this story indicates, Ralph Goodale, Minister of Finance and the man behind (in theory) the budget that was just re-written by Paul & Jack, was not entirely thrilled by recent events:

"I would have preferred my original plan," Goodale told reporters in Saskatoon. "I would prefer not to have to make these changes."

But it was clear his original budget would not have passed in the House, he said. "In a minority, you have to be flexible enough to make a minority work."

Now, perhaps my memory is failing me, but I seemed to recall that this "original budget" would have passed. The CPC had, at some political cost, agreed to pass the bloody thing so long as some ancillary Kyoto Protocol material was taken out. An agreement having been reached to take the said Kyoto material out of the budget, it appeared that thanks to the combined support of the Liberals and the CPC, the budget would have passed whether Jack Layton & Co. voted yes, voted no, or went to the pub when the question was called.

Of course, now that the budget will be amended to please Jack Layton, the CPC no longer has any reason to support it, and in fact has indicated that it will no longer do so.

So, to sum up: Insofar as the budget is concerned, and leaving aside the poor public policy behind the NDP amendments, Paul Martin has alienated a total of 99 Conservative MP's - to attract the support of 19 NDP MP's.

As a Conservative, I can only hope he brings the same level of acumen and strategic thinking to the approaching campaign.

More later.

Time-Wasting, Yet Informative ....

This is a good site for folks interested in federal political history.

Enjoy. I'll be back, hopefully this evening.

More later.


Get Me A Lawyer ...

... Because I'm getting whiplash over here.

Once somebody figures out whether Paul Martin is, or is not, caving into Jack Layton's demand re: the corporate tax cuts, let me know, ok?

Andrew Coyne raises an excellent point via a reader of his: I too thought Jack Layton's hell-or-high-water policy was proportional representation. Now it's corporate tax cuts. If any Blogging Dippers find their way over here, maybe they can explain that one.

Oh wait, never mind ... while I was typing the above, this just came over the wire. I'll need to think about this one before I post any thoughts, but I'm happy to report that Paul Martin did not have to completely abandon his commitment to his budget ... just mostly.

Of course, while Paul Martin has managed to make Jack Layton happy, these guys aren't as impressed ... but hey, the government pretty much ignores that particular group at will anyway, unless somebody really forces their hand, so what else is new?

(That link to the veterans' hunger strike really brought back some memories about that whole issue ... no, I wasn't there, but family members were. If there's one group that has been consistently shafted by this country, it's veterans. Remind me to talk about that sometime, if you're sick of the current political stuff.)

More later.

Gotta Run ...

Sorry if you're looking for fresh, new content ... duty calls for the moment, but I'll be back this afternoon or evening.

More later.


Pimp My Riding

This won't be that long, b/c I've got a mountain of work glowering at me, but I can't resist paying tribute to some of the high-minded Liberal MP's out there:

"If [governing] means we have to form a coalition [with the NDP], then we need to form a coalition to ensure that the Liberal agenda is passed. That's something we must do at all costs" (emphasis added) - Ontario Liberal caucus chair Sarmite Bulte

"I have no problem negotiating wih and working with the NDP. My bottom line is Canadians want us to govern ..." - Toronto Liberal MP Maria Minna

"Prime Minister Paul Martin said yesterday he is open to changing the federal budget in an effort to win the support of the NDP" - Today's Globe and Mail, pg. A1

"I will be meeting with Mr. Layton. Both our respective staffs are in the process of trying to put it together and I'd like to do it sooner rather than later" - The man himself

Keep in mind that this is the budget that the Libs are screwing around with here. Heretofore, the Libs had treated its spending & tax priorities as if they were handed down on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai. What's up for grabs now is not even an ancillary piece of government business, like Kyoto or the new Atlantic Accord that has been tucked into the budget implementation legislation. The issue of taxation isn't peripheral to the budget - it is a fundamental part of it.

Now, in the hopes of hanging on to their limos for a few more weeks, they're willing to scrap a major part of that budget to buy off Jack Layton. Nice going, folks.

You can argue that the CPC is doing likewise as the grits, since they're working with the BQ to force an election. But that's a situation where different parties are working towards advancing their respective policies, using the same method (i.e., an election). The fact that the CPC and the BQ may vote the same way on a non-confidence vote is not a case where the leader of a governing party says "sure, I'll just screw around with what, almost by definition, is the most important legislative statement of policy I have."

Martin has a chance to get this right, by telling Layton to go jump in the lake. Heck, it's not as if Layton could, or would, prop up the Libs for long anyway, given the numbers in the house, and given his own musings that this would be a short-term thing. If Martin does tell Layon to get lost, I'll say good for him in advance. The problem is, Martin doesn't exactly have a history of showing a stiff spine. Let's see if he breaks his pattern of caving in now.

Oh, and one more thing: If the Libs do re-write the budget to satisfy the NDP, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves if the Tories vote against it. In other words, they've just given the CPC a perfect political reason to vote down the budget, if they're of a mind to do so.

More later.


I've Been Linked, Newbie-like ...

Many thanks to Kate at Small Dead Animals for including me in her newbie list.

I'm even more grateful since, technically speaking, this here blog has been up for more than a month - but as I explained to her, it has been less than a month since I started posting on anything close to a consistent level.

To avoid any Gomery-esque accusations of sucking up for personal gain, I've waited till after her list went up to say this: Since I started paying attention to this whole "blog thang", I've found that Kate's SDA is often one of the better on-line reads out there. Her own "motorcycle diaries" (non-Che version) are quite good, though you have to hunt for them a little bit.

(I'd better stop with the praise at this point, or this post will start to sound like Paul Martin talking about Boulay's wife in his "Cher Claude" letter.)

Anyway, thanks again, Kate.

More later.

Blogging Tories

I've taken the not-entirely-unpredictable step of seeking to join Blogging Tories.

Given that:

1. I've been a member / supporter of the former PC Party of Canada since '88 (I was one of the relatively few blue tories who didn't head for the CA - at least, it felt like there was only a few of us in the PCPC, sometimes ...), and

2. I'm currently an EDA president for the CPC (hold the applause - the ED in question is Trinity-Spadina, which isn't a hotbed of conservatism - yet),

it seems like a logical step to take.

So, if you were directed here via the BT blogroll - welcome, and make yourself at home.

More later.


"You're Crooked, But I'm Easy"

... that appears to be the message, Jolly Jack is sending to Prime Time Paul, according to this (free registration may be required).

I have to wonder ...

... will it really help the Libs to be seen as reliant on the NDP? How many "blue Liberal" votes is that going to lose? You know, there's a reason why the NDP came in dead last in terms of seats and maybe it's that most people don't want the NDP driving the bus. This may be yet another thing that Martin & Co. may not quite be grasping.

... will it really help the NDP, in the long term, to be lashed to the Liberal Party at this point in time?

More later.

Play Ball

{Warning - Non-political post ahead. Don't worry, there'll be more partisan hack-ery either later today or tomorrow.}

Just goes to show - with (a) the lack of hockey playoffs to remind me that "hey, it's spring!" and (b) a focus on politics, I haven't paid enough attention to the start of the MLB season.

Baseball has taken it in the teeth lately, and deservedly so. Their drug-testing system is a joke, and I'm disgusted at the thought that players whom I admired just a few years ago may have set their home run records thanks to the pharmaceutical industry.

Additionally, the disparity between "big market" and "small market" teams means that long-suffering fans in places like Kansas City will have to catch a very lucky break to see their team in the post-season (although to be fair, the Oakland A's seem to manage ok). Now, I'm all for the free market in theory and practice, but there's something to be said for an NFL-style system where a team in a place like Green Bay can consistently be in contention.

And don't even get me started on the demise of the Montreal Expos. Watching the team play out the string brought back memories of '81 and '94 ... so near, and yet, so far. It tears my guts out to see "Washington Nationals" in the box scores and standings. (I had vowed to avoid the Nats and everything about them, but to give some (minor) credit, they do have a fairly good history of their life as the Expos here. But don't buy anything on-line there - they don't deserve any money in their pockets ...)

And yet ... one of the positives about me and my wife moving to Toronto is that we're literally a block away from Skydome - er, I mean, the Rogers Centre. And unlike the Leafs (who?) and Raptors, you can attend a Jays game at something close to a reasonable price.

Now, I have to confess, I don't enjoy watching ball games indoors. Watching under the closed dome is better than nothing, but there's nothing like watching a game under the sun instead. But like pizza (and certain other activities), even when live baseball isn't at it's best, it's still pretty damned good.

Baseball is called boring. I would say it's definitely a slower-paced game, but what's wrong with that on a summer evening? Personally, I enjoy watching the strategy develop, get revised and put into effect, both offensively and defensively. Yeah, a breakaway in hockey (or soccer) is exciting, but there's something about watching the excitement build over the course of a half-inning - one man on base, then another, then a K, a sac fly, a walk ... and it keeps on building till the third out.

But even if there isn't something happening that minute, that's ok ... unlike, say basketball, where you pretty much need to be watching every second, in baseball you can take a minute (or more) to look around the ballpark, to grab a hotdog or a beer, or even to chat with the person next to you - and odds are, you won't miss the highlight of the night.

And I like the fact that there isn't a clock to play against - you keep going till the last out. Yeah, the game can drag (they've taken some steps to crack down on stalling ... but it's still a work in progress), but it means that, as the great philosopher said, "it aint over till it's over".

And all of that aside, despite a bit of a losing streak over the last week, it actually looks like the home side won't completely stink out the joint this year ... and even if they collapse, you can still get that sense of optimism at the start of each season, or even each game, or even each inning, or even each at bat - a sense that this time, in spite of all logic & lessons that ought to hae been learned from previous experience, something good will happen.

Now, if they can just get the drugs out of the game, I'll be a happy man ...

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: the Yankees suck. Just wanted to make sure I pointed that out.

More later.


Uh oh!

Maybe Gomery's not so bad ...

Maybe Earscliffe's not so bad ...

Maybe the next election won't be so bad ...

... But now Martin's in trouble!

You don't want Bono mad at you. You just .... you just don't.

More later.

... And The Hits Just Keep On Coming

Check this story out.

Ever notice how when *one* wheel starts to fall off the bus, the other wheels start to follow suit?

{originally posted in the comments section to this post at BlogsCanada E-Group}

More later.

Line of the Morning (So Far)

From Harper's appearance on Canada AM:

"Mr Martin wanted to have an election without Gomery, now he wants to have Gomery without an election - what he's always trying to avoid is the two together ... "

More later.

Q & D Review - Survivor: Ottawa

Well, I thought he looked desperate and clinging, but I'm biased as hell, and I recognise that. Others are saying it was fair-to-good, at least under the circumstances.

Early prediction: Unless Harper can really pound home the message that what Martin is asking for is a 10-month free pass (report in December = election call in January = vote in February), this just might work - damn it.

What do I mean by that? No, I'm not predicting that there won't be a spring '05 election. I think that once the armies have been mobilized, and once the trains have already left for the front, these things take on a life of their own. What I mean is, people will be ticked off about going to the polls before Gomery J. "finishes the job", unless Harper really pushes the points he raised last night.

More later.


Place Your Bets!

Since I'm rather new at this, I don't know if it's a breach of netiquette (b/c the internet is all about upholding common rules of decency. {cough.}) to post stuff on your own blog that you've already posted elsewhere, but what the heck. If you can't steal from yourself, who can you steal from?

I already put this in the comments section at My Blahg (I know, I know ... but I figure that when I pass on, I'll get out of purgatory one year earlier for each time I visit), but just for fun, here are some odds on what we'll hear from Prime Time Paul tonight:

... "Like you, I'm outraged at what we've heard from Gomery": 1.2 to 1

.... "Like you, I want to wait until Justice Gomery reports so we can get to the bottom of this": 1.2 to 1

.... "I am proroguing Parliament till next July/November/Christmas - yeah, I said last night I wouldn't do it, but tough nails": 5 to 1

.... "I have just spoken with the Governer General, and ...": 10 to 1

.... "That bastard Kinsella's gonna pay": 40 to 1

.... "If you wait to watch Duceppe or Harper speak after I'm done, you're gonna miss 'Survivor' ": 50 to 1

.... "Are you ready for some football?": 60 to 1.

No odds on "Let me be clear" or "Let me be perfectly clear". Any and all winning bets will only be paid out of funds recovered from any lawsuits that have already been launched by the federal government against the Liberal Party of Canada, so don't come looking for me if you bet right.

Anyone else have any ideas?

More later.


Prime Time Paul & Contrite Chretien

Well, as you may have heard, Paul Martin will be gracing the airwaves with his presence tomorrow (Thursday) evening.

There's plenty of discussion going on at Andrew Coyne's place, amongst others, but for the record, I suspect that it will be a plea to "give Gomery a chance" and to encourage the oppo to prop him up for a little while longer.

Another interesting thing making the rounds is the possibility of Jean Chretien publicly taking the blame (more or less) for the sponsorship mess, and saying that Martin had nothing to do with it. I suppose that if Chretien really felt that the Libs were heading for Tory-in-'93 territory, he might do such a thing.

I'll believe it when I see it, but then, I've had to revise a lot of assumptions, politics-wise, in the last little while.

Feel free to speculate away!

More later.


Benedict XVI, and a Question ...

Well, as you have probably heard, we have a new Pope.

I say "we" even though I am not a Roman Catholic (although you could say that us Anglicans are pretty close, and that we would be closer still were it not for Henry VIII's matrimonial problems). As John Paul II's impact on the world around us illustrates, you don't have to be Catholic - or even Christian - to be affected by the papacy.

If you'll pardon what may seem like a cheesy (but sincere) line, I hope that the joyful spirit that I saw amongst the pilgrims in Vatican City spreads around the world.

Now, the question:

Benedict XVI is seen as a "conservative" within the RC hierarchy. As such, I presume that he shares John Paul II's aversion to birth control, including condoms. I have already read plenty of comments from people saying that this sort of thing is responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa (amongst other places).

Help me out here. People are blaming the RC Church for the spread of AIDS b/c of its position on condoms. Well, isn't that a case of blaming the Church for people who follow only a portion of the Church's rules? Let's not forget, the Church also calls for sexual faithfulness within marriage, and abstinence outside of it. If a person is only going to obey some of the Church's rules, are the consequences the fault of the Church?

Now, I have also heard people say that my argument is too simplistic, and that it ignores the power imbalance between men & women, especially in some parts of the developping world. These people argue that it's not fair to women to expect men to follow the rules re: faithfullness and/or abstinence, and to get infected with AIDS as a result.

On the surface, that's a very good point. But in response, I have to ask this: if a man is, shall we say, "catting around" and sleeping with any female he can, do you really think he's overly concerned with Church doctrine, and do you really think the reason why he's not wearing a condom is because the Pope says it's a sin? Believe you me, I have heard and/or read about men who have no time for condoms, and religion has little, if anything, to do with it. It's not as if these people would say "well, time to start using a condom" if the Pope was to say it's ok.

Anyway, it may seem inappropriate to mix a debate over condoms in with commentary about the new Pope, but if that aint stopping the media, it aint stopping me.

As always, your thougts are welcome!

More later.


More good news (non-Canadian-politcal version)

Let's just hope that this holds true.

I remember being quite nervous once India and Pakistan started testing nuclear weapons. It's tremendous to see positive stories coming out of that region now.

More later.

Excellent (Non-Political!) News

This is terrific. In case the link doesn't work, Perdita Felicien, who was a gold-medal favourite at the Olympics last year only to hit a hurdle at the start of her race, has won her first outdoor race since then.

Here's someone who was seen as a prime gold-medal hopeful in Athens, and who was subject to a lot of media tongue-wagging when she fell. I can only imagine how it all felt to someone in her early 20's. And yet, here she is, winning again. Good for her; here's hoping she's still in conention at Beijing '08.

More later.

I'm probably reading too much into this ...

... but I have to wonder if this may be a sign that the Liberals are worried that Stephen Harper's anti-same-sex marriage campaign is getting some support amongst new Canadians?

Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly sounds like the Libs are trying to pin down what they see as the "new Canadians" vote in advance of an election.

Which leads me to another question: has anyone ever done an actual study into whether the whole "new Canadians vote Liberal" thing is still true (assuming that it ever was)? It's probably my own bias talking, but I find it more than a little offensive and/or patronizing that we can assume that an "ethnic group" votes as a bloc for a particular party.

I would prefer to believe that "new Canadians" (and for the purposes of this discussion, I will define that term as immigrants and their children) vote along the same lines as Canadians as a whole within their geographic region. In other words, the divide is amongst different regions of the country, not races or ethnic groups (for instance, a majority of "new Canadians" and "others" would have voted in the last election for the CPC in, say, Calgary, while a similar majority would have voted in the last election for the LPC in, say, Toronto). But I wonder if anyone has ever done any research to find out.

If you know, please share your wisdom here.

More later.


Back Again ....

Ok, the fact that at least one person not named "Jason Hickman" has visited here is shaming me back into action, although Lord (not Bernard) knows how long this burst of activity on my part will last.

So, quick re-cap:

  1. The CPC convention went about as well as can be expected, I figure. Harper's speeches were excellent (not that I'm biased, but to be fair, they got good press), the only "blow-up" came over Scot Reid's resolution re: # of delegates - something that's *very* "inside baseball" and was dealt with in 24 hours, anyway.
  2. Harper got a good, solid 84% level of support. Not bad at all, considering some of the experts were predicting something in the low 70's.
  3. The policies adopted at the Convention? Wellll ... I freely admit that I'm a little more conservative / classical (or neo-) liberal / libertarian than either the public at large, or the CPC in particular, so it's not like I agree with it all, *but* on the whole it's a good balance. We aren't going to kill the Canada Health Act, but we are supportive of things like private delivery of services. We are in favour of the trad. definition of marriage (with free votes for anyone who disagrees) but we aren't bringing in abortion legislation.
  4. Some inquiry going on about some sort of ad programme in Quebec is getting some press. I wonder if anyone will notice?

One more thing. Last time 'round - the last *few* times 'round, actually - the CPC / CA / PCPC / RPC all had problems with "rapid response". An issue would come out, and the Libs would spin it to a fare-thee-well, while the conservatives (of whatever party name) acted like they were firing up the old mimeograph machine with promises of a press release in response sometime next Thursday.

Well, the other day Martin was in BC, and the mayor there - a centre-left type of guy, who was looking forward to his share of Martin's gas tax promise - sounded off about how that plan would be out of window if the heathen tories won. Well, instead of letting that point of view fester and get spun by the grits, the CPC does this.

In response to that, you've got Libs saying "that wasn't what you said before", which is a bit rich coming from that crowd (you'll recall that the Libs voted in favour of legalized prostitution, amongst other things, at their convention, and Martin waited about 5 seconds before telling his party to go jump in the lake). Now, I agree that the CPC has to be careful here - if it re-writes policy on the fly, it's begging for trouble. But it can say with a straight face that just b/c it wouldn't come up with new deals of the sort dreamed up with the grits, it *will* live up to obligations already in place.

ANYway, the point is, the CPC didn't wait for this issue to get spun, and then set in stone, by the Libs. If they keep doing that, and keep doing it smart, it takes another weapon out of the LPC's hands.

More later.