Ezra Levant Needed

Not many know this, but I've modeled my communication strategy on Ezra Levant, who I believe has based some of his techniques on what Tony Blankley did as Press Secretary to Newt Gingrich. (I've never asked him, but I'm assuming since Blankley came first, Levant learned from Blankley.)

Anyway here is the essence of the Levant-Blankley communication strategy: DO NOT STAY QUIET.

There are some downsides to this strategy. For example, by always being loud and in front of reporters, you always get reported. Good or bad. If you are loud and in their face in the good times, you cannot avoid them in the bad times. You must always have an answer. This strategy forces you to get off your behind and do work. It is definitely not a lazy man's game.

However, there are many upsides. First, and most importantly, as an opposition party, you need to take advantage of natural media lulls. That means when there is no news, you need to become the news. If you are always loud and in the reporters' faces then they will naturally turn to you when they have nothing else to cover. So you will get some coverage. Second, you fight off the natural liberal bias in media. Reporters are Liberals, but they are not liars. They will report your side of the story if you give it to them. By being in their face all the time you avoid the recent confusion over who offered to delay the SSM bill for the budget. (Was it us who offered to sell out or was it the grits?)

This is not the strategy currently used by the CPC.

I remember when I was working on the Hill, there was a day that I wanted to send out 6 press releases. (My goal was generally to average one per day.) When the leader's office found out, they called and complained that I had too much of a "war room" mentality. They made me narrow it down into two. Now the pressers got coverage but that's not the point. The point is the more you send out, the more you will get covered. Journalists don't like to have to go fishing for a story. If you give them one, they'll print it. Second, I believe that everyone in the communication shop should always have a war room strategy. Conservatives get good coverage during elections - or at least better coverage. So why can't we be in that mentality 24-7.

I think CPC has a lot to learn from Gingrich's contract with America. The first step should be setting up a permanent war-room.

Strategery: Tom Flanagan, Preston Manning, and stuff

It is rumored that during the early days of Reform's caucus meetings, Preston Manning's favourite phrase was "As Sun Tzu says..." Manning used the phrase so often that even the most loyal Reform MP's began mocking him for it.

But Manning is not alone in believing the value of war strategy in politics. There are many others. (Including this not-so-humble blogger.) I once attended a private lecture, at the Royal Military College, by Tom Flanagan where he specifically used parallel's between warfare and politics to point out how he, as a political novice, had managed to speed up his learning curve. After all, as most readers of this blog know, before managing Harper's leadership campaign, the closest Flanagan had been to a political campaign was writing about it in a book. (If you have not read Flanagan's book on Game Theory and Politics, you must.)

I have talked about this to point out that I think, if Bourque's musing's about Flanagan being sacked are correct, then the CPC may be entering some risky waters. (Not that I believe what Bourque says about such things anymore.)

I say this, not because I am a fan of Flanagan. In fact, at best, I am undecided about his abilities. On one hand, this is the guy that is yet fail to reach his stated objectives in any campaign. On the other hand, he has never had to fight a hard fight and, on a personal note, he once sacked me.

I am worried to him being fired, because I believe you can't change horses in midstream. (Or change generals in a middle of the war.)

As most readers of this blog would know, the CPC has at least a dozen spots in the can and ready for the air war. All signs indicate that this air war will begin within the next few weeks. If we have already started our ground war (BBQ's and such) and are only days away from starting our air war, is it not dangerous to sack the person who was a major part of the strategic thinking behind these offensives? I am not saying that Harper can't find a better person to do the job. All I am asking is, can he find a better person to finish Flanagan's job?

In any other situation, this would be highly doubtful. The only thing that makes it slightly more acceptable, and less risky, in CPC's case is Harper's independence. When he first took over as the leader of the Alliance, many were shocked to see Harper act as his own Chief of Staff. He made staffing decisions and was involved in the most minute actions. So one would not be surprised if Harper had been involved in every detail of the campaign strategy as well.

If this is the case, and there is no reason to believe it is not, then Harper has broken the cardinal rule of political campaign management - the candidate cannot be the campaign manager. However, by breaking this rule he may have given himself the flexibility to bring in a new campaign strategist. So once again, by going against the conventional thinking, Harper may have helped the CPC.

I suspect that if the MSM reports on Flanagan leaving, they will miss this subtle point and thus come to the wrong conclusion.

Did PM just call Harper fat?

Harper asks a question about the Chretien letter, and here is the response:

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have now answered the hon. member's questions twice, but I would like to raise another issue.

The deputy leader of the Conservative Party has said that the Leader of the Opposition is going to spend this summer on the barbecue circuit. I understand the dangers of the barbecue circuit and I would therefore like to table this document for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition this summer. It is a document called The South Beach Diet.

Is it just me or did PM just call Harper fat? What happened to the civility? More importantly what happened to the wit?

I am not offended that these guys are not being civil, I am offended that they aren't more witty.

This won't be a long post

"sounder on policy, sharper on tactics, stronger under fire" is how Andrew Coyne describes Stephen Harper.

Right on!

Coyne has officially become my favourite Canadian pundit - surpassing even Mark Steyn. (Yes. I just said that.)

Hebert is right

Chantal Hebert is a socialist. It's that simple. But, like Ian Urquart, she is often right about tactical issues. (Not policy stuff. She is usually out to lunch on those.)

In today's column she talks about the Conservative Party's failure to do more with the recent Supreme Court ruling. I think there is a good deal of truth to what she is saying. To borrow an often used line, it seems, on healthcare, the CPC caucus is unwilling to take YES for answer.

First, it was the party's support for the health accord and Harper's repeated reminder that he supported the accord. (Almost as though he was trying to take credit for it.) Second, it was the caucus hiding behind party unity to push for the status quo on healthcare in a party where 80-90% like the idea of private participation. Finally, it is the OLO's decision to be more left wing than the Liberals and the population at large on the Supreme Court ruling.

Somehow the CPC line on this issue has become "well, look you Liberals screwed up health care so now fix it." In fact, it wasn't the Liberals that screwed up healthcare it was the government. It is the general idea of monopolist healthcare that screwed up Canada's medicare system.

The sooner we start making our case for private involvement in healthcare, the sooner we will win this fight.

Globe and Mail

So today's G&M has anonymous sources talking about how Stephen Harper must go. This, after some idiot leaked something to Bourque about Jim Flaherty running for leader. I know a few things in politics and one of them is this: Jim Flaherty is not running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada

But right now I want to talk about G&M's anonymous sources.

I remember a West Wing episode where Abbey Bartlet had a fairly good quote about anonymous sources. Here is what she said:

"Unnamed sources. C.J., unnamed sources make me crazy. Just one time, I'd like to see...
instead of "according to unnamed sources" I'd like to see according to tweaky little
ill-informed chicken-ass wannabe... Don't ever come to me again with unnamed sources,"

That's exactly how I feel about cowards who hide behind anonymous sources. There are two distinct possibilities here:

1. G&M is looking for any idiot to bash Harper and will talk to a former Riding Membership Secretary from 1975 and call them anonymous to hide the fact that they are fishing for a story that has no legs, or

2. Someone who is actually important, possibly an MP from Western Canada.. hint.. hint, is trying to unseat Harper not realizing that a) even if Harper lost, this MP would not have the money to run a leadership campaign and b) if Harper goes it is unlikely that our next leader will be from Western Canada.

Either way, as Lanny Cardow points out, there is a reason why so many papers have banned anonymous sources from being quoted in stories.

Anonymous source is just journalist talk for coward. I remember after the Ontario PC leadership race I had a reporter come to me and give me a chance to bash one of the other candidates "anonymously." I told the reporter: "I think XXXX will have to answer for his own actions, but other than that I have nothing to say." Right after I said it, I felt sick to my stomach. Even though I hadn't said anything bad, I knew that it might get twisted. I didn't feel like being the jackass, anonymous source that everyone was trying to kill. (Having worked for the Alliance during the Stockwell Day time, I can tell you how staffers feel about anonymous sources.) I have now made it a rule: if I am talking to a reporter, I will make sure they have my name.

Because unlike the jackasses talking to G&M, I don't to be called a coward.

Cowards!

We're supposed to all look away

According to Liberal ethics, this is a-okay.

If you get a chance, read more about Swaziland. Aside from having the world's highest HIV/AIDS ratio and being one of the poorest nations on the planet, Swaziland is well known for its King's odd orders. For example, a few years ago he made it illegal to have sex. He also likes to get married about once every year - always to someone under 20 it seems. He also has a taste for expensive cars. Anyway, suffice to say that Swaziland is one screwed up and backward place.

So, why does the Western world do nothing about this? Would it be so wrong to send a bunch of guys with guns there, take over the royal palace, and declare the country a Canadian or a US protectorate?

I'm sure the people of Swaziland won't mind. They are dying while their king is stealing their money and raping their daughters. Instead, our governments continue to send aide to Swaziland which the King uses to solidify his power, jail opposition leaders, buy fancy cars, and marry a few more teenagers.

It's official

The pissing match between the National Post and Stephen Harper has reached a new height.

Many of you will remember when the National Post accused Harper of not being a real conservative shortly after the last election. The paper accused the Tory leader of being too willing to support Liberal initiatives on various issues - including provincial transfers. (Which incidentally is an issue that I think Harper knows more about than the rest of the country combined.) Harper, being the short tempered fellow that he is, wrote an op-ed to the Post claiming that he had had a conversation with President Bush about how Canada lacks a conservative paper. (Isn't it great, the most conservative paper in Canada and the most conservative leader in Canada accusing one another of not being conservative enough.)

Frankly, they are both right on this issue. Today's Post is not the 1998-1999 Post, and Harper is not the 2001-2002 Harper - but that is an issue for another day. Right now, I want to talk about how silly this whole battle of personalities is.

It is no secret that the Post's editorial board dislikes Harper's personality. He wasn't nice to them when they met and did not show them the required respect. On the other hand, it's fairly obvious that Harper dislikes everyone in the media. He makes no secret about it. This is why, during the last election campaign, his wife spent a good deal of time making friends with the media. (So much so that I hear a few reporters wish she were running instead of Harper.) But shouldn't grown adults be able to get over personality differences for the sake of the cause? After all, if Stockwell Day can get over personality differences and serve in the Harper caucus, why can't the Post get over the personality stuff and just do what it used to do so well back in the late 90's?

I believe that the problem is that the Post's editorial board, unlike any other paper, is filled with people who actually know about politics. These are not reporters who became pundits, they are hacks and ideologues who became reporters.

Let's take a look:
Adam Radwanski: Former hack in the Liberal Party of Ontario. Founder of Pundit Mag.
Lorne Gunter: Former Member of Saskatchewan Liberal Party.
John Turley-Ewart who one would believe is a supporter of the Liberal Party in Scarborough.
Adam Daifallah (no longer at the Post): Former President of Ontario PC Party's campus wing.

Anyway, it has long been my belief that the Post editorial board has more "hack knowledge" than either The Star or the Globe and Mail. So it would make sense that they would look not only at principles and ideas, but at campaign management and personalities.

This is usually a good thing. NP’s Ed.Board can give good insight into what a political party should do. (For example: their consistent urging of the CPC to stay true to its base is bang on with the electoral realities of Canada.) In Harper's case, however, the Post’s experience does not help it.

The Post Ed.Board would believe that traditional ways of winning elections are the only ones. (If it hasn’t been tried in the past, it won’t work.) The NP fails to realize that Harper is not trying to win the old fashioned way. He isn't the traditional Tory leader who happens to be more right wing than the past one. He is genuinely a new brand of politician. He refuses to spin. He refused to fib, even a little bit. Most importantly, he refused to fake friendships.

I'm not sure if Harper's is the best way to win. But I know that he will fail for sure if he tries to become a more conservative version of Mulroney. It's just not in him and people would see right through that.