BTC: Ken Dryden is not amused


Been awhile since we’ve checked in with Ken Dryden. And, admit it, you’ve missed his irony-free, dauntingly earnest, but probably necessary, ranting against the current state of Canadian politics. 

Completely unsolicited, a copy of a speech he delivered today has been passed along. Here it is for your review. The shouty bits appear to be in caps. Imagine Ken trembling as you read.

We’re now about a third of the way through this election campaign.  What’s been happening up until now?  Where does it all seem to be going?

Stephane Dion has been talking about our economy – our economy now and in a very changing world; about the environment; about poverty, what it does to people, to kids, and the need to engage that fight now.

But really, up to this point, Mr. Harper has controlled the message of this election.  Yet, this message has often been odd and surprising. 

Like their slogan: “We’re better off with Harper.”  This is their slogan; their ad – “We’re better off – with Harper” – like saying “taking everything into consideration, despite all this or that, on the whole, really, probably we’d have to say, (“we’re better off with Harper”).  Not exactly a ringing endorsement.  Nothing energizing about it, nothing exciting.  Nothing that makes you want to wake up in the morning and race into the possibilities of your day.  Yet this is their message.  Even in their dreams they can’t quite express anything stirring, anything big.  Is this what being a Prime Minister is about?  What Canada is about?

Then there’s the blue vest, the “Mr. Nice Guy” ads.  Ad firms are paid millions to tell the story their client wants told.  It’s much easier for them when it’s a new “product” or a new “person” launch.  When the information they provide is the only information – when the public knows nothing else.  The problem for Mr. Harper is that the public does know something else.  They’ve been watching him for 2 ½ years and Stephen Harper, they know, may be lots of things, but he’s not a “nice guy.”  He’s not.
Nice guys don’t cut literacy programs. Nice guys don’t cut funding to women’s groups, aboriginal groups, health and childcare and poverty and disability groups.  Toying with them month after month, teasing them with silence and desperate hope.  If, they say to themselves, if I don’t say anything, if I just go quiet, maybe I might get something.  Please.  Then crumbs, or nothing.

Nice guys don’t decide there’s only one voice in this country that matters.  Not these voices of our communities.  Not those of his own Cabinet or Caucus.  Not voices in the arts who get their programs cut because they say things that might make us squirm.  Not any voice competent and professional who disagrees – Linda Keen, Adrian Measner, Jean-Guy Fleury – who then feel the pulverizing weight of a Government machine come down on them just so they know: you don’t mess with “the vest”. 

Arts groups, literacy and poverty and childcare groups – it’s the same story. Nice guys don’t make the weak weaker and the vulnerable more vulnerable.  

Nice guys don’t act like there are Canadians and not-quite Canadians.  Those who fit Mr. Harper’s understanding of how life is supposed to be lived, and those, Canadians too – single mothers, addicts, gays and lesbians – who don’t.

And nice guys don’t take someone else’s person, as he did Monsieur Dion, they don’t take their personality, their character, their life, what they’ve worked hard to build, what is decent and substantial and good.  What they’ve earned.  They don’t take that, twist it, stretch it, caricature and distort it.  They don’t buy air time and in front of millions of people, assassinate it.  And pretend, ahh, that’s just politics.

Oh, and the puffin and the poop – oops, sorry.  Didn’t mean it.  Just like I don’t mean all the other just-as-new ads on the Conservatives’ website, that reach tens of thousands just like the Mr. Nice Guy ads on TV, that are just as abusive as the others in the pre-Mr. Nice Guy time.

If it quacks like a duck, put a blue vest on it, it’s still a duck.

But who says you need a “nice guy” to be a Prime Minister?  It’s a tough, often disagreeable job.  As they say about war – with the enemy all around, who do you want in that foxhole next to you.  In politics, in sports and business, some not-so-nice guys are good leaders and win, and some nice guys are good leaders and win too.  And some nice guys and not-so-nice guys fail.  Being a good leader isn’t about that.  It’s something more.

From these first 13 days, it is clear that Mr. Harper has decided this election is about him. He’s saying to Canadians: I’m a leader.  I know what I want – I’m decisive – I deliver.  And that, he says, is leadership.  And in uncertain economic and global times, he says, Canadians need that and want that.  But what Mr. Harper confuses is the posture of leadership, and the substance of leadership.  Leadership is .  .  . leading – getting others to follow.  But critically, fundamentally, leadership is direction.  It is going  .  .  . somewhere.  The question is “where”?  Leadership matters because the “where” matters, and it’s the job of a Prime Minister to know better than anyone else what the best “where” is.  For the country.  For your life and my life.  That’s real leadership.

As a golfer, I can hit the ball a long way.  The problem is I can’t hit it in the right direction.  And a ball hit – decisively, competently – in the wrong direction is a ball that goes further and further and further into the woods.  History is filled with leaders who have competently, decisively gone in the wrong direction with disastrous results.

Where is Mr. Harper’s “where”?

He doesn’t seem to want to talk about that.  In making this election all about him, he is doing his best to make this election about nothing.  It’s his “Seinfeld campaign.”  But in 2008, how can that be?  This is a time when the cost of carbon economically and environmentally is forcing the world’s countries to re-imagine the future.  To reward the constructive and punish the destructive.  To act.  To change.  To create the hard-won possibilities to compete in the economy ahead.

It’s a time when the gap between rich and poor is growing.  When too many Canadians live the way no Canadians should have to live.  When too many don’t have a real chance at a real future. 

It’s a time when our children need more and better opportunities to learn – when they’re young and need a good start; later in college and university.  A time when aboriginal peoples finally and forever need the chance of a full Canadian life. 

It’s a time when, as Canadians, we need to think about ourselves differently. We are 33 million people – one of the world’s largest economies; one of the world’s richest nations; with a land mass so big and abundant amidst a world of countries that have neither.  We are safe, secure and stable; we can count on tomorrow, plan for tomorrow, imagine and build tomorrow, when just about everyone else cannot.  With our French and English past, with our present where people from almost everywhere live within our borders – we are a country which has learned to live with difference, accept difference, learn from difference; live the global world of the future, when to much of the rest of the world difference still means guns and blood. 

Countries come and go, prominent at one time, pushed to the sidelines in another.  History is a long time.  And undeniably, whatever Canada has been in the past we will be far more in the future.  The world knows that.  We need to know that too.  And our leaders need to know that, and embody it and act that way in everything they do.

There is more to us, more to Canada, than tax breaks as the answer for everything.  More to Canada than life as pieces and parts – East; West.  Quebec; the Rest of Canada – firewalls everywhere.  More to us than Mr. Harper’s small, pinched vision of ourselves and our future.

“Better off with Harper”? 


We are more than this.

This election is about something.

Stephane Dion may get a lot of criticism, but he is trying to make this campaign about something.  Mr. Harper is not.

Leadership, real leadership, is first of all, most of all, knowing what’s important – then focusing on it, sharing it with others, then determinedly, relentlessly, together, getting there.

I don’t believe in “hidden agendas.”  I find arguments like that just too easy.  I just want to know where Mr. Harper’s going.  Tell me.  Tell us.  What is your vision of this country?  How should it work?  What should it be?  What is the best “US” now and for the future?  How does Canada become what Canada can be?  Tell us.  We need to know.  Tell us how, person to person, we, as Canadians, should relate to each other?  What we can expect of others, and what others can expect of us?  Tell us what role government should play, and shouldn’t?  Tell us about families, in busy, complicated real, not fanciful lives, how as parents we give ourselves and our kids a real chance at all that’s in us to be. Families are not just card games with kids – tell us.  We need to know. 

And once you’ve told us that, tell us why you’re not saying to Canadians that to realize this vision, one you believe so important to our present and future, so unbelievably exciting to you and to all of us, that you need us, all of us, that you need a majority to do it? Say it, say it, why wouldn’t you?  Shout it from the rooftops –   – after you’ve told us your vision of the country, and for the country.  After you’ve decided this campaign is not about nothing.

Mr. Harper wants this campaign to be about nothing because on all those things the campaign needs to be about, he has nothing to offer.

This campaign is NOT about Mr. Harper.  It is NOT about him.  It is about our present and future economy, about climate change, poverty and learning.  It is about all Canadians having a real chance.  It’s about encouraging, allowing, seeking out voices different from our own, that make us smarter; that bring us to our best and keep us from our worst.  It’s about our understanding of ourselves as a country, about the importance of Canada in the world of our future.  This is a campaign about BIG, IMPORTANT things.

In an election about nothing, Mr. Harper will win.  In an election about something, we will win.  We have 23 days.



BTC: Ken Dryden is not amused

  1. “This election is about something.

    Stephane Dion may get a lot of criticism, but he is trying to make this campaign about something.”

    Based on his latest ad, he’s trying to make it about a smear about jokes related to fellow professionals in private and made public to the Liberal war room via a disgruntled civil servant. Nice. The Liberals have some nerve talking about any moral high ground.

  2. As your colleague Wells has opined, the man speaks at a pitch only Liberals can hear.

  3. “…we are a country which has learned to live with difference, accept difference, learn from difference…”

    But Ken can’t live with difference. In 2006 he was whining ” I want my Canada back…” after ten months of Conservative rule. That was “too different” for Ken. Ken wants difference as long as it’s the same… same old Liberal view.

    Live and learn, Ken. Accept that this land is your land, this land is my land, and that this land was made for you AND me… not just you.

  4. Excellent speech! As Aaron said “but probably necessary, ranting against the current state of Canadian politics.

    As for the conservatives who don’t like the Liberal Ad about Listeriosis….if you’re going to dish it out, you better be able to take it. In any case, that ad is unlike yours because it’s factual. It also alerts and reminds Canadians, every time they see it, that Harper cut food safety inspections without letting the Canadian public know. The deaths were awful. Listeriosis is awful. But withdrawing essential government safety procedures without warning? Unforgiveable and unelectable.

  5. The elections of 2004, 2006 and now 2008 have taught us that when it comes to mudracking and smearing, the Liberal Party of Canada are in a class by themselves.

    Considering that they continue in a downward trend, they may wish to re-consider such American-style tactics.

  6. Jarrid, that’s a mighty case of projection you’re throwing around.

    Let’s adjust your statement to reflect the truth.

    The elections of 2004, 2006 and now 2008 have taught us that when it comes to mudracking and smearing, the Conservative Party of Canada are in a class by themselves. Considering that they continue (edit) with the mudracking, lying, smearing, juvenile tactics in general, (/end edit), they may wish to reconsider (spelling fix) such American-style tactics, because it’s making them lose.

  7. This election is indeed about something.

    The “natural governing party” has not yet finished serving its major penalty from the sponsorship scandal. As is so evident from Dryden’s speech, the arrogance of the Liberals is that they, and only they, understand “Canadian values”. It looks like it may take several more elections to wring this sense of entitlement out of the consciousness of Canadians.

    I am a Canadian and I do NOT share the values of the Liberal party. I believe I am in the mainstream of Canadian values, not on the extreme left like many in the Liberal Party. I also believe the silent majority of Canadians share my views. This does not make me a bad Canadian. But try and tell that to Ken Dryden.

    Ken, you’d better enjoy the penalty box because that’s where your party will remain for the next 8 years at least.

  8. Well said Brian.

    Beary – I’m referring specifically to the over-the-top negativer ads that the Liberals are putting forward, which put the lie to the Dion/Dryden moral uppityness of the Libs.

    Brian makes a better point though – the Liberals need more time out. Everyone should read Warren Kinsella’s post today about the state of the Liberal Party of Canada if they disagree.

  9. Mr. Dryden is correct! WE need to hear more righteous indignation about how and where our moderate country is being taken! While no party is completely perfect, . Dion is at least honest and he has a team – more than can be said for Harper!

  10. Over the top negative ads? I’ve seen far worse, much much worse, from the Conservatives. Not to mention the bashing of Dion for the past 2.5 years.

    As for Canadians and how they feel about Canada, if the Cons have 36% of all votes, and all the other parties have the rest of the votes, that does not tell me that Canada overall prefers Harper or his government. That tells me Canadians DON’T want Harper or his government and votes are being split amongst other parties.

    The Liberals of yesterday are in the past. Just as Conservatives don’t want to be reminded or compared with Mulroney and his era, which is also in the past. We have two major political parties in Canada who are now represented by very different people than we’ve ever had leading them before. In the case of the Conservatives, that’s not even the Con party anymore – it’s the reform/alliance party, and extreme hard right. Not at all what Canada is about in the majority. In the case of the Liberals, we have a leader with integrity, intelligence and passion for this country. It’s been a long time since anyone reminded us what is great about Canada. Dion is reminding us. Harper is alienating and dividing us.

  11. Ken Dryden is an eloquent (better term than verbose, no?) and earnest defender of his party. He has done his homework to attack the incumbents on their political vulnerabilities. The Liberals should give him an editor and unleash him more. Of course it’s preachy about what Canada should be about (a Liberal at 24 Sussex, of course!), but remember he is a Liberal and just can’t help himself to define Canada in Liberal Party image.

    “A time when aboriginal peoples finally and forever need the chance of a full Canadian life.” Wow, I didn’t know the Liberals were in favour of killing the Indian Act, to ensure property rights for our First Nations Canadians and to gut the powers of the prone-to-kleptocratism-and-nepotism Chiefs. Since the Tories had to disown a candidate for similar refreshing thoughts (along with a silver bullet to the CBC, etc.), I suspect the claiming-to-own-“Canadian”-values Liberals don’t really mean to offer the chance of a full Canadian life to our Native people. Too bad.

    The “penalty box” comments are a partisan retort that probably resonates less and less with Canadians, since the “face” of the Liberal party has wisely mutated away from the rogues of the sponsorship scandal era. Come up with something better, folks. Try a scary thought like “Defence Minister Denis Coderre,” or hammer away at the Green Shift, or the meddlesome billions now on offer in provincial jurisdictions (being careful to see the black pot of Harper promises in this vein…).

  12. He complains about “nothing big” from the conservatives.

    I’m sensing most Canadians concerned about their pocketbooks in a time of potential financial crises,

    aren’t too amenable to associating “big” with “government/taxes” right about now.

    If nothing else, Dion’s spending promises are certainly “big”.

    I’d one-up Mr. Dryden. They’re gargantuan.

    Today’s Liberals, where there’s no better government than big government.

  13. Beary, I believe you’ve been at the plurality-instead-of-majority-means-repudiation-by-Canadians line for a while now. If you could think past that thought, ever so briefly… please calculate the even larger repudiation of your Liberals. And ponder the logic of crediting a party with fewer votes as the great uniter, and the party with more votes as a great divider.

  14. Madeyoulook – Of course I’ve been at this for a while. Just as you and others like you are constantly espousing your beliefs. The problem is getting past the b.s. from all of you, to the truth.

    Consider this, why does it take 4 political parties to shout down the Conservatives if they are, as you all claim, the preference of Canada? Usually when you have that amount of people speaking up against a ruling party, that means trust in the ruling party is lost, and people want them out. The truth is, the majority of Canadians do not like Harper or his government. Otherwise, you would have more than 36% of Canadian’s votes.

  15. I believe this is the first exchange we are having, Beary, but believe me it will be the last if you want to line the gutter with “b.s.” and an exclusive claim to the truth. It is possible to have a debate without spewing venom, you should try it sometime.

    And now, back to the scorecards. Would you mind showing us the last few Canadian federal elections where the governing party earned your exalted 50% plus one? Even the obviously-number-one-choice-of-all-proper-Canadians, the Liberals? Surely there must be many super-duper majorities for you to espouse this as the only standard worthy of political legitimacy. Take your time, we’ll wait.

  16. Ken Dryden is a wonderful Canadian – both on the ice and on the floor of the Commons. We should be proud of his contributions and dedication.

    Sleepy Canadians who are too distracted to pay close attention to the issues are buying the misleading ad campaign of the Conservative Party. Their ads are tacky and are filled with mistruths.

    Wake up Canada and smell the BS.

  17. Ken Dryden is a wonderful Canadian – both on the ice and on the floor of the Commons. We should be proud of his contributions and dedication.

    Sleepy Canadians who are too distracted to pay close attention to the issues are buying the bogus ad campaign of the Conservative Party. Their ads are tacky and are filled with mistruths.

    Wake up Canada and smell the BS.

  18. Beary,

    that’s what we in the industry call ‘shifting the goalposts’. What is commonly done by those on the losing end.

    We haven’t had a government with a true plurality majority support for a very long time.

    Now that the CPC is set to form a majority government with the same dynamic as Chretien’s government,

    it’s suddenly illegitimate.

    Sorry rabbit, tricks are for kids.

  19. An interesting read, I quite liked it. Would have loved to have seen it delivered, seems to have the makings of quite a fiery, impassioned speech. Not having seen Dryden often give a speech, but knowing him to be a large forceful presence, should have been a real rallying cry for supporters.

  20. As per Wikipedia, I have located the last time a winning federal party passed 50% in popular vote. I am afraid you won’t like the event, Beary:

    1984, Mulroney Conservatives, 50.03%

    And the time before that? Uh-oh:
    1965, Diefenbaker Conservatives, 53.66%

    In 1949, the St.Laurent Liberals came close (49.15%), but they too suffered being “outvoted” by non-Liberal voters, so had zero legitimacy to Beary.

    As for the others:

    1940, Mackenzie King Liberals, 51.32%

    1917 Borden Unionist, 56.93%

    1904 Laurier Liberals, 50.88%

    1900 Laurier Liberals, 50.25%

    Hmm, that’s a lot of minority and majority governments “outvoted by the people.” How did we get this far, I wonder.

    I have a Q for Beary, now. In those years that there was no 50%+1 popular vote, do you think I could get a refund on my taxes, since you will be able to show the tax court the law that states such a government was unworthy of rule? Many thanks: my neo-con baby roaster is on the fritz and I could use the dough to get a replacement in time for the mid-October celebrations.

  21. Kody, it’s obviously not suddenly illegitimate. It is simply the way our voting system works. I’m merely pointing out that just because Harper has (according to some polls) 36% of votes, does not mean he is representative of Canada or it’s citizens entirely. Not even remotely. As this thread progressed, I came in late but was responding in part to the first comment, which asserted their belief that the majority of Canadians agreed with him. I was indicating how that statement is false.

    Now to Madeyoulook, by all means, walk away. But before you go, please note, I do not claim to own the only line to the truth. I was countering your rather sarcastic first comment in this thread (talk about venom) as well as comments by others who believe as you do. It is disturbing to have truth misrepresented. Every Canadian has a voice and they are entitled to use it. That means, if someone lies, there will surely be someone else speaking up to set the record straight. I would hope you’re not suggesting that we citizens are not allowed to speak up.

    In any case, Ken Dryden’s speech is excellent.

  22. Madeyoulook – Well done! Facts! From a Conservative! See, now that is worth noting. And I don’t have a problem with it. See my comment above which I was writing while you were scrambling on Wiki and apparently, trying to read my mind as to how I’d feel about that.

    As I said, Dryden’s speech – excellent! And well representative of Canadians.

  23. Oh Beary, try to conceal your excitement that a conservative (note the lower case, please correct your mistaken assumption of my party membership accordingly) might have some facts. Such an attitude speaks poorly of your willingness to respect your fellow Canadians who might not think precisely as you do, and frankly, speaks poorly of your debating skills. And feel free to enlighten me on the content of my first comment that is false, a lie, or “b.s.”

    I just re-read that first comment, and I retain the message that Dryden is an ASSET to the Liberal campaign, that he should be used more if the Liberals have any sense, and that Tories who want to run back to the sponsorship scandal should try harder to convince Canadians why they should vote Tory. If my worship of a member of a party I choose not to vote for fails to meet your exacting standards, I trust you will recover from the pain and anguish.

  24. Madeyoulook, good heavens. Pain and anguish? That may be your feeling but it isn’t mine.

    I agree, by the way, Dryden is an asset to the Liberals.

  25. So, Beary, shall I hang around for your dissection of the “BS lies” in my first comment, or can we agree that your defamatory hyperbole was a nonsensical rant, unworthy of any further attention?

  26. I find Stephen Harper’s image makeover uninspiring and indicative of greater problems for Canada:

    Profile of the Sociopath

    This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

    * Glibness and Superficial Charm

    * Manipulative and Conning
    They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

    * Grandiose Sense of Self
    Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”

    * Pathological Lying
    Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

    * Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
    A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

    * Shallow Emotions
    When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

    * Incapacity for Love

    * Need for Stimulation
    Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

    * Callousness/Lack of Empathy
    Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

    * Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
    Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

    * Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
    Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

    * Irresponsibility/Unreliability
    Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

    * Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
    Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

    * Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
    Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

    * Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
    Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

    Other Related Qualities:

    1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
    2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
    3. Authoritarian
    4. Secretive
    5. Paranoid
    6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
    7. Conventional appearance
    8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
    9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
    10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
    11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
    12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
    13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
    14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
    15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

    (The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

  27. Hey, TC the shrink, do you realize this post was about a Ken Dryden speech?

  28. Madeyoulook isn’t playing well the kids again. Time for bed Connie boys. You’re all getting cranky.

  29. Dryden’s speech was bang on. He just nailed it with this one.


  30. I agree with Austin and Dryden.

    “As a golfer, I can hit the ball a long way. The problem is I can’t hit it in the right direction. And a ball hit – decisively, competently – in the wrong direction is a ball that goes further and further and further into the woods. History is filled with leaders who have competently, decisively gone in the wrong direction with disastrous results.”

    I think we have all seen way more of this than we would care to.


  31. The problem is getting past the b.s. from all of you, to the truth.

    After plenty of time to substantiate or retract, Beary leaves that unpleasant comment out there.

    So Beary now joins T Thwim as a LIAR who refuses to support accusations of lies with any actual evidence. Feel free, fellow commenters, to ignore these two, as I shall, and as I shall continue to do for one insult-o-matic troll.

    Good night.

  32. It’s sad that having a life and not being able to sit on a blog thread for hours constitutes being a liar. Ah well, think whatever you like myl. It doesn’t bother me.

    Ken Dryden is an excellent example of what it is to be a citizen who loves their country and wants to preserve it for all. This speech should spread far and wide.

  33. OK, Beary-with-a-life, go ahead and expose my lies and BS that deserve to be countered with your eloquent truth, or retract the charge, or sit comfortably with the liar label. Your choice.

  34. Well, someone’s sweater vest is certainly all bunched up.

    Anyway, I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s been denounced.

  35. Time’s up. The midnight conviction stands.

  36. Too long. Didn’t read it

    Totally agree, Steve. Way too long. Half-sentence soundbites are all you need to run a country.

  37. Excellent speech. I read the whole thing out for my parents who appreciated the narration.

  38. Madyeyoulook – You’ve got one error in your list of 50+ majorities, Dief the Chief was no where near 24 Sussex in 1965, i think you meant 1958.
    But you’ve got to concede that Dryden does have a point: where’s Harper’s plan? He’s already waffled on the arctic once, cancelling all important frigate contracts, but maybe if the ice melts even further, he can issue canoes? And where’s his thoughts on energy, we’re an energy superpower, right? So can he come clean with his intentions for nuclear energy now, so all of us Canadians can be amazed at his foresight? Why leave it for an ‘after-majority surprise’? And can he let us in on who his next knee-cap target will be, the Governor General maybe? That way we can be ahead of the game and cheer on his so-christian playbook rules. My bible is missing out the part about ‘unprovoked attacks on rivals’ but it does sound similar to something a Bush would think. Oh, and does he have a thought about poverty? Is it going to be solved by the Big Oil’s largesse cut from the opening arctic, by chance? C’mon, inquiring minds wanna know…

  39. Thank you Dan, indeed it looks like I blew it on the year: Dief’s 53.66% was indeed in1958 according to Wikipedia. Sorry about that mistake.

    And I did indeed observe (“concede,” if you want to use that word) that Dryden “has done his homework to attack the incumbents on their political vulnerabilities.”

  40. Hmmm. Wonder if Harper is going to write about Ken Dryden in his ever-so-long-in-getting-written book about hockey?

  41. You stay classy, Garth Turner

    Funny how in a campaign dominiated by gaffes and scandals, a candidate posting a “Death Watch” against his opponent slips under the media’s radar. Almost as if there was an agenda at play.

    Naw, that can’t be it. Everyone here says there is no double standard in the media, so it’s got to be some other reason. Guess it’s just me being paranoid again.

  42. One thing was lacking in Ken’s speech. The ideology of the Conservative Reformist party. They believe in shrinking the government. They look at the world thru rose coloured ideology glasses not as the world really is. This kind of thinking gets us killed. Oh, right, 18 people have died because of this and in Atlantic Canada there is a major meat recall, next time you cut into that steak, think mad cow disease, because that’s what the Conservative Reformist government want to stop testing for next.

  43. John G., that would be “Blog death watch” not for the person. Her blog is dying one part at a time.

  44. Personally, I think the conservative supporters here would be glad that the media is focusing on what Gerry Ritz’ said rather than what Gerry Ritz’ did that caused these deaths he’s joking about.

  45. My favourite part is Kenny putting a puffin and a duck in the same paragraph – who is this guys speech writer actually forget that this speech had to be self written – he should have skipped a hockey school night course and taken english prose instead. Although he did make one valid point : History is filled with leaders who have competently, decisively gone in the wrong direction with disastrous results. : his own leader is a great example of exactly that OH! wait! Sitting on your hands for 43 confidence motions isn’t going in the wrong direction it’s going nowhere and in no direction just like the Liberal campaign.

  46. Just on the “plurality vs. majority” argument that was running there for a while, I’d like to say that while I certainly agree that a 40% Tory win is no less legitimate than a 40% Liberal win, I’d still say there’s a qualitative difference.

    When Chretien had 40% popular support he had a majority in which about 30% of the country wanted him to govern more to the right than he was, and about 30% of the country wanted him to govern more to the left than he was. It seems to me that if Harper gets a 40% “majority”, that other 60% would all want him to govern more to the left than he will (OK, call it 55% to be “conservative”).

    Again, none of which is to question the legitimacy of such a government given the limitations of our system as it pertains to expressing the popular will, but I do think there’s a qualitative difference between a 40% “majority” where the 60% opposition is split between those who want the country to be more to the left than the government’s platform, and those who want the country to be more to the right, and a 40% “majority” wherein the entire opposition wants the country to be more to the left than the government’s platform.

    Not that an opposition representing 60% of the voters is any more legitimate just because the whole 60% is pulling in roughly the same direction, but it is a demonstrably different scenario from a 60% opposition where half of them wants to go in one direction, and the other half wants to go in the opposite direction. It seems to me that at any given time Chretien was pulling the government in a direction away from the desires of roughly 30% of the population, whereas at any given time Harper is pulling against the desires of roughly 50-60% of the population. That’s a significant difference. I don’t think Chretien often found himself in the position of having the entire opposition arrayed against him all wanting to pull the country away from him in another direction. So, while a 40% “majority” is equally legitimate no matter what the opposition wants, it’s surely a whole different ball game if the 60% opposition all wants basically the same thing.

  47. Wayne wrote:

    “he should have skipped a hockey school night course and taken english prose instead.”

    Well, Dryden is a Governor General’s Award-nominated author with five books under his wing, so it looks like the hockey school night courses did OK. He probably even knows how to capitalize “English”.

    I’ve always thought he writes a great speech, and this one is no exception, but that his delivery compromises his prose.

  48. Yes. A very good writer of non-fiction.
    I particularly enjoyed “The Moved and the Shaken”.

  49. LKO, you have an interesting observation about the ideological distribution of those who voted against the governing party. Please note, however, that there is a substantial portion of Tory voters who would love to actually pull them into real honest-to-goodness conservatism. It’s not like nobody’s “pulling” them to the right.

    Of course, I can hear the lying liar Beary now: you see? Even his own voters don’t really support him, so he’s getting even less than 38%, so he’s even more anti-democratic for presuming to govern with such a flimsy vote. Since realism has no place in a debate with such a position, I will just leave it at that.

  50. I agree that this is a great speech for the insight shown into Harper’s narrow agenda and simplistic understanding of how a diverse society can be brought together to form a mutually-beneficial, more harmonious country.

    Mr. Harper is from the Leo Straussian philosophy, infused into his disciples by Tom Flanagan of the notorious ‘Calgary School’.

    Tom Flanagan has shown his great pleasure with the success of the Harper government. He even crowed that Harper and Flaherty had emptied the coffers of government so completely that it would make it impossible for any future government to bring in social programs. He does not believe, as neo-cons pretend, that Canadians know best how to spend their money because neo-cons are not willing to let the majority influence how the money should be spent.

    The opposition parties represent the majority of the Canadian population. They all believe that government is best-positioned to do for us what we, as individuals, cannot do for ourselves. What person, in today’s enlightened world, would believe that private enterprise has all the answers? We have seen huge corruption in the private sector — more than we have ever seen in a democratic government where we can vote out the incompetents.

    I could go on about Harper’s and Flaherty’s incompetence in handling the finances of this country such as Flaherty’s mistake in allowing 40/0 mortgages, which, if he had a clue about what was around the corner, he should never allowed. At least this hand to the greedy was brought to an end. And the loss to Canadian government of immense tax income from BCE when they decided to tax income trusts — they didn’t even see this coming! Or did they? There is the matter of the blacked-out pages.

    Too much to ruminate about here but people should be watching more closely and not just Harper’s expensive attack ads against Dion.

  51. Spit it out, Ken!

    That was a fairly long speech. That must’ve easily taken an hour for him to deliver.

    Or perhaps he’s still going …. (check against delivery) …

  52. madeyoulook,

    Good point on the fact that many in the CPC are pulling the Tories to the right (or trying to). Certainly many in Canada decry the lack of “true” conservatism from the current batch of Tories (I’ve always said that I think the Harper minority has been WAY more “liberal” than a Paul Martin minority would have been, for a number of complicated reasons). However, all of those people pressuring for a move to the right today are in the CPC’s hypothetical 40% right? There’s no “outside” pressure on the Tories to move right. All of the external pressure on the Tories to move on the ideological scale is pressure to move left (well, not ALL but you’ll allow me some simplification for the sake of argument).

    My comparison between Harper and Chretien was more about where the REST of the country (the 60% not already behind the PM and his government) wants the government to move. I’d maintain that in Chretien’s case, in simplified terms, roughly half of that 60% wanted to go left, and roughly half wanted to go right (actually, under Chretien maybe a bit more right than left, but you get the point).

    Again, none of which is meant to question the legitimacy of a hypothetical Tory majority with 40% of the pop. vote, I’m just interested by the more compelling nature of the (relative) unity of the opposition in such a scenario. I liken it to the PM driving us along in our collective car, and he gets to drive because his 40% of the electorate gives him a majority in the car (the House). Now, under Chretien, when the car came to a fork in the road, roughly 30% of the passengers said we should turn right, and roughly 30% said we should turn left, and Chretien’s 40% broke the tie by making the decision with their majority power. In a Tory majority, when Harper gets to the fork, one could argue that 60% of the passengers want to go left, and Harper’s 40% majority can (whether or not they WOULD is another question) simply make the decision (and overrule them). Again, that’s no less legitimate systematically, but it’s a heck of a lot more complicated. It’s one thing to run the country and constantly be at direct odds with 30-40% of the people. It’s another thing entirely to run the country and constantly be at direct odds with 50-60% of the people.

  53. LKO: I try not to look at it in terms of right and left, but in terms of choices.

    NDP would of course prefer they win, but if they don’t, then the Liberals are tolerable, and vice versa. However, both of them tend to agree that Harper’s Conservative Party is not tolerable, and this is the difference.

    Does that delegitimize the 40% plurality-majority government? I tend to think that in some respects it really does.

  54. I quite like the bus analogy. But I think roughly 20% of the passengers were just saying “let’s go to Quebec!”

  55. Liberal or Conservative, 40% is not a majority. Why should one political party get all the power when most people voted against them? Monopolies are bad in business; why would we think they are they good in government?

    What to do about it? Check out this website:


  56. “He does not believe, as neo-cons pretend, that Canadians know best how to spend their money because neo-cons are not willing to let the majority influence how the money should be spent.”

    That’s because we don’t believe Canadians know best how to spend other people’s money.

  57. Which is because you’re either hypocritical or not thinking things through.

    If you believe all things should be privately funded, then you believe that the military should be voluntarily funded. That only people who can afford to send their kids to primary school should have the opportunity to do so, and the rest can become uneducated migrant workers. That there should be no saftey standards on products, nor requirements for labelling. No emission or pollution controls, no nationally operating police force to catch criminals who move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You believe that funding for infrastructure, like, say this internet thingy you’re using right now, should not be built or regulated by the public, meaning our farmers and rural dwellers would essentially be without telelphones right now. You believe that a national mail service should not exist (couriers don’t go everywhere, even at their exorbitant rates, because some places just don’t get enough mail for them to bother with)

    You essentially believe that all progress in Canada should be slowed by a factor of 10 or more since there would be virtually no ability for a national government to leverage economies of scale.

    As a friend of mine used to joke “Categorical statements are never correct.”

  58. Liberal party values are NOT my values or the values of many Canadians. The Liberals are so arrogant that they think those who don’t agree with them are evil. Ken Dryden is an academic preacher and a wooz. You get too much of him after 50 words. GO AWAY.

  59. Funny how the left wants to whine about 40% majority governments now, in the middle of an election campaign.
    You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
    It’s just sour grapes. I dislike sore losers.

    Lord Kitchener: the middle way is not always the best way. Perhaps veering to the right is the right way to go. And there are a heck of a lot of issues that don’t slot nicely into the left-right spectrum. Most people don’t even know what left vs right means.
    And finally, you characterization the the Libs are in the center just because there are two or three parties to the left is bunk.
    If the NDP/Greens/Bloc were eliminated then the Conservatives would get over 50% of the vote.

    How do I know? Do the math on the voter retention poll from ekos Sept 17. http://www.ekoselection.com/index.php/2008/09/retention-rates-%e2%80%93-a-deeper-analysis/

    The Conservatives have received over 1/2 of the votes departing the greens (which would give them an extra 5% if the Greens disappeared), 1/3 of the votes departing the BQ (which would give them 3%) and 20% of the votes leaving the NDP, which would give them another 5%.
    The conservatives are polling at 38%, and the grand total is 51%. So you can conclude that with the polls the way they are now, if the BQ/NDP/Greens disappeared then the Cons would get a majority.

  60. You get too much of him after 50 words. GO AWAY.

    if the BQ/NDP/Greens disappeared then the Cons would get a majority.


    Need to keep it simple folks, otherwise these guys have a hard time unnerstandin’..


  61. After reading that pitiful, arrogant long winded self serving bit of trash- I can only wish that Mr. Dryden had stayed in Hockey and stayed out of politics.

    It was just more self serving crap from a privileged member of what it’s members believe is the Natural Ruling Party- and a reminder to the rest of us of why they no longer are (and may never be again).

    Mr. Dryden does not seem to get it- Canadians have finally seen the emperor and that he has no clothes. As usual the NRP is morally bankrupt. In fact they are totally bankrupt- and they want ours- all of it. And they want to re-make Canada according to their fantasies.

    Well, Mr. Dion can take his massive tax grab and his social shift and shove it. Does he believe that our country can survive another carpet bagging Liberal Prime Minister robbing from the West to feed the East?? Well sure he does- it’s always worked before.

    Not this time. As a wise man once said, “Fool me once- shame on you…. Fool me twice-shame on me!!”

  62. Hey Cascadian : your handle (username) is it from the movement years ago? I seem to recall that there were a bunch of Oregonians, Washingtonians , a few Californians and some of us up here in BC and Alberta that were talking separation and the name of the new country would be Cascadia … is this the foundation for the name?

  63. Hi Wayne- no foundation, just personal inclination, But I’m willing to start small- say BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan, perhaps smaller than that even- every movement has to start somewhere.

    Liberal Prime Ministers drove me to it- Trudeau, Chretien and now this Dion wannabe. I’m tired of feeding the monster- and then getting my hand bitten off in return.

  64. The Canada Ken is talking about is the moderate balanced Canada I have known for the past 30 years. I am so confused why Canadians are losing their train of thought. Socialism does not work it bankrupts the system, and the American dream leaves the majority behind. Moderation is the key to everything else in life, why would that not apply to our daily Canadian life? Thanks Mr. Dryden, and Conservatives think about more than yourselves.

  65. The Liberals should take some Dryden’s comments and craft ads with them. This is what people are saying at Tim Horton’s and Starbucks, in offices and factories. No one trusts Harper (except his greedy or mean-spirited base). Fight back stronger and louder. Doesn’t mean be mean – just honest. Honesty will bring down Harper – because he is incapable of it himself.

  66. Well it seems to me that when average Canadians read stuff like Ken’s drivel or Dion’s elitest blather it is they who are not amused!!

    Most of work hard for our living and it’s hard to sit back and watch our country and society go to hell in hand basket like it has for most of the past 30 or 40 years.

  67. “The Liberals should take some Dryden’s comments and craft ads with them.”

    Great idea- in fact pair them up- Pompous Ken and Sill Stefan- the Liberals would really be in free fall then. Yes!

  68. Well Cascadian, I for one would like to understand what you think has happened in Canada over the past 30-40 years to warrant the “hell-in-hand-basket” epithet.


  69. I’ve got a fairly long list but I could condense it down to a few main issues-

    1. High Taxes without government accountability
    Poorly thought out and ineffective social engineering (no I’m not a rabid neo-con, color me fiscal conservative but social progressive- I have no problem with gay marriage or freedom of choice.
    2. Rampant crime (in spite of government spin, hey Uhjal)- people have just quit reporting it because the police rarely come anyway.
    3. Revolving door justice (injustice) system- after someone has been convicted 20 or 30 times throw away the key- but here in BC they get a reduced sentence (the experience discount). And for those who say that punishment is not a deterrence, I would like to point out that it will at least deter that individual from committing another crime while is incarcerated.
    4. The Gun Registry- It is illegal (and has been for a long time) to own a handgun or automatic weapon-and it should be. Quit penalizing the legitimate firearm use of farmers and hunters. Clamp down on the gangs, street punks and illegal importers- lock’em up (add 15 years consecutive, no parole to their sentences- gun crime will go away).

    4. No funding for interest groups of any kind. If it interests you- you support it and pay for it.

    5. Immigration. I have no problem with legitimate refugees- but let’s ensure that they are legitimate and not war criminals in their homelands first. After that target younger, educated and trained professionals and trades people- people with skills that our country needs. These kind of people build the Canada of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Restrict extended family immigration to those families willing to guarantee support.

    That’s a start- I could go on, but it’s time to go to work- someone has to support the nanny state.

  70. Oh please. Libs loved to demonize Harper. Compare him to Hitler, remember soldiers in our streets etc. Libs even went after their own during the Paul M/Jean C wars that saw political careers ended. Don’t complain about not being nice. No political party is ever nice. Not the cons, not the libs.

  71. Mr. Dion represents integrity, respect, vision and a cohesive approach to issues that he has experience in. I hear his party advocating the same and pointing to a leader who refuses to be bullied into a mud-slinging shouting match that no one can win. I certainly don’t see the same qualities in any candidates of the party currently governing. From them I see silenced, cowed, paranoid individuals afraid of the person that is in charge regardless of whether they will admit it or not. Something the obviously right wing slanted media refuses to acknowledge. Albert Einstein said that “unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth” and I really feel that the sitting MPs on the Conservative side of the house are forced into this automatic response for their leader. When we used to hear from them (when they were Alliance, Reform, and the precious few Progressive Conservatives), we at least saw how human and flawed they were and we were able to make an assessment accordingly. These days I can barely name a sitting Conservative MP because I know so little of them. They’re not allowed to speak, They’re not allowed to represent anything other than party line and more importantly they’re not allowed to contribute to governing the country which is what they were elected to do. Those few who do represent to the media and the Canadian public are such Harper oriented individuals that I might as well be listening to a PR firm. Garth Turner found out what it costs to be an individual in that party and why hasn’t Canada glommed on to this fact or become worried by the nature of his expulsion? With respect to those that intend to vote Bloc, Green or NDP I say to you, you will cause a Conservative majority and I wonder just how your ineffectual posturing will suit you when that occurs. My worst fear is that Canadians have become so blase and selfish that they can’t be bothered to inform themselves about Mr. Harper and his party. It sure seems like most Canadians can’t be bothered to stand up and reject the very thing that threatens what they claim to love about being Canadian. If that’s the case I shudder for what I know Canada to be and what it once aspired to be because we have regressed to the point where we deserve a majority under a man as small as Mr. Harper. The thought makes me fear for our future more than anything else on the current political spectrum.

  72. Note to Canada re: Harper’s message:

    Better off? Who? And it what way? Is our environment better off? Our economy? Our culture? Our people?

    Under the so-called conservatives, everyone the answers is NO.

  73. redux- in case I get the Harper treatment for making some typos:

    Note to Canada re: Harper’s message:

    Better off? Who? And in what way? Is our environment better off? Our economy? Our culture? Our people?

    Under the so-called conservatives, the answer is NO to everyone of those questions.

  74. How do you spell privatised health care and CPP and no social safety net or peace keeping?

    You spell it HARPER.

    Vote for him, you deserve what happens

  75. Well, T Watcher, someone once said “I know that’s why I’m voting for the guy…”

    Except “no social safety net” is bunk. Go ahead and google the Canadian constitution. And read it. Who is REALLY responsible for the social safety net? The provinces. Who keeps butting in to mess things up? The feds.

    Except “Privatized health care” is also bunk. I refer you again to the Constitution. If you could explain why two-tiered western Europe is such a health care calamity…

    CPP: again, provincial jurisdiction, so much so that one province insists on running its own.

    Peace keeping? One of the dumbest ideas to have been maintained in an era when warring sides either don’t want a peace (Yugoslavia mess, Rwanda mess), or an expensive distraction when “warring” sides don’t want a war (Cyprus).

    Vote in a federal election for socialist-leaning nannies to butt into provincial jurisdiction where they don’t belong, and you deserve what happens.

  76. We do not care what you like, I not Voting for these Corrupt Liberals period. And I never the Montreal Canadians anyhow, so does not matter to me!

  77. Well MYL, why bother with a “Canada” then?

    Seems like you would prefer everyone to live in their own gated communities. Problem then is finding someone who would even want to live with you.


  78. Austin, to presume that Canada MUST have a federal government meddling in provincial jurisdiction, and/or MUST have a crumbling single tier health care system to compete with Cuba and North Korea for last place in the freedom competition, or else we needn’t bother with a “Canada” at all… let’s just say that if you are not already in the inner sanctum of Canadians-who-believe-we’re-the-only-Canadians-who-matter, the Liberal Party membership application is on its way in tomorrow’s mail.

  79. Look MYL, I am simply taking your arguments to their conclusion. Don’t get so sensitive.

    What would then be the cohesive force in this decentralized state? And what would even be the purpose of it? That is what I mean by “why even bother with a Canada at all”.

    If you are simply arguing for minimal overlap between the feds and provinces in services, then yeah…great.

    But it seems to me you are advocating a Canada where inequities in services will invariably exist.


  80. a Canada where inequities in services will invariably exist.

    If that is your definition of evil incarnate, then (if one may be so bold as to take arguments to “logical conclusions”), you must be thrilled that the Constitution has been hijacked the way it has. Or perhaps you should run for office on the abolish-the-provinces ticket.

    Oh, and I let your silliness slide earlier, but if we will carry on anyways, I will now point out that how levels of government sticking to their assigned powers got me into a gated community is a complete mystery.

    And if you equate “get[ting] so sensitive” to presenting a counterargument, I will respectfully request that you save your psychoanalysis for others and stick to debate. But then, I suppose in your eyes I’ve just gotten all sensitive again.

    If the feds have a job description, may they please stick to it. And the provinces would do well to do a better job with their job description.

    The last eloquent word shall be surrendered to others, I am off to Z…Z…z…

  81. I suspect the difficulty many people face with this current campaign is trying to understand what the campaign is really about. There has been very little substance so far, little to get one’s head around. Oh yes, to be sure, there are issues! They are legion. But only some of them are being addressed. There are promises, each more expensive than the last. Each one addressing a specific issue or perceived failing.

    But whither the country? Not the 33-plus millions of us. Not the northern half of the North American continent. Not a major trading partner. But the essence of Canada. The country that we have come to believe is different from most of the rest; has a unique place in the world, with values that have come to be at the very source of what we think of as “Canada”.

    For me, our country is beginning to slip away — quietly, gently, yet persistently. The philistines are hard at work. Those who counter them create sparkling visions of new manufacturing jobs, targeted tax cuts, and a major emphasis on renewable energies. All important, to be sure. But all espoused by the pygmies who now purport to lead our nation — pygmies who have replaced the giants we once knew.

  82. A leader is somebody who has followers. Regretably, I only have one vote to indicate whom I would prefer to follow. Mr Harper is not that person. I am not proud of his satesmanship on the global stage. Puffing his chest out and blocking progress because no progress is better than small progress. Bullying subordinates is abuse, not leadership. Toying with progammes to pander to a mean-spirited base is not leadership. Attack ads are not leadership. In my view, leadership is standing up for the underpriviledged, working for what is right rather than expedient, achieving goals by education rather than by use of pewer, and taking responsibility for actions. On these criteria, Mr Harper fails. Unfortunately, I appear to be in the minority in Candada today. Enjoy your $100 per month childcare, your unfettered access to killing machines, your privatised healthcare, your few more cents per dollar earned, your smog-filled skies, and your unchallenged mind. Enjoy your individual life free from Government regulations and trust in the leaders of industry to look after your wellbeing. I hope your grandchildren enjoy the Canada you leave them.

  83. Thank you Mr. Dryden for an impassioned plea for the Canada I recognize and care deeply about.

    Mr. Harper’s election campaign is seemingly about nothing because he is afraid that if he does reveal his vision of Canada, the majority of Canadian will not buy it and he’s right! So he lies about what he plans to do with this country once he has a majority, he lies about his opponents’ campaign promises because he realizes they care less about power and more about the country, and worst of all, he lies to his children with promises for a better future.

    We need a leader with integrity, one who really cares about making Canada a better place for fellow Canadians – all of them, single mothers, gays, artists and liberals. Mr. Harper is NOT that leader!

  84. “Too long. Didn’t read it.”

    This is the problem with our current cafeteria style politics. Who has time to give a damn enough to read it! I want my MTV!


  85. Hey, I’m flattered that someone would steal my nom de plume.

    But, Dot imposter, pick your own name please. How about Dash?

    The REAL Dot

  86. saskboy: “Excellent speech. I read the whole thing out for my parents who appreciated the narration.”

    Good God man! That’s the height of cruelty in my books! I’m sure they were wishing for death with every syllable.

  87. So what is Stephane Dion’s catch phrase? That’s right…nobody knows or can remember.

  88. Check out the article in the Toronto Globe and Mail about Kens new found enthusiasm for his campaign by going Green! Tha’t right folks he’s all for recycling … even his campaign signs – this what is known as saving the furniture strategy!

Sign in to comment.