Open Letter To Duff Conacher, Coordinator Of Democracy Watch

That is an excellent engaging letter. The Democracy Watch group seems to go beyond its mandate and it seems quite fair to denounce their endorsement of a political party. By doing this, they lose all their neutrality, should a minority conservative government be elected.

This being said, we must not however forget that People needs to be educated first about democracy (so that they actually engage in it). Our medias need to be seriously reformed. The current "system" is clearly most incapable of doing this. And changing this is a generational thing: it will take time! All that can be done at this point realistically is to work at the grassroot, with new medias for instance.

Thanks to the CAP Party for keeping the Democracy Watch group in line.

---
"We are all in this together somehow, some more than others somehow"

Is this the letter?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsDec2205.html">http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsDec2205.html</a><br />
<br />
"So far the Conservatives, with a platform containing 56 pledges to strengthen government accountability in 12 key areas, as well as democratic reforms to the Senate and nomination races, are far ahead of the other four parties that have measurable support of Canadians in election surveys."<br />
<br />
That last sentence is important. I'm not taking a swipe at CAP here, just pointing out the bad fact. And when you've got someone who might be a natural champion/amplifier for your cause like Conacher and dwatch, you might have tried a more "political" approach--if your platform indeed fits his criteria, perhaps invite Duff to mention it in his *next* newsletter. You know, he's also involved in a group for banking reform and accountability. Not your best choice of enemy to make. <br />
<br />
"Unfortunately, even the Conservatives’ 56 pledges leave some key gaps, as follows ... "<br />
<br />
Hardly a ringing endorsement!<br />
<br />
Does this "open letter" follow an official snub of a behind-the-scenes "hey, dwatch, how 'bout CAP", smile-and-handshake, or is this the first response from the communications office of the party?<br />

Facts on Harper & Conservative Party

Like the Bush Republicans, the Harper Conservatives would take Canada into dangerous territory:

· Harper, like Bush, favours Canadian involvement in the ongoing U.S. war on Iraq.

· Harper would take Canada into deficit in order to pour billions into the military. Bush has already taken the U.S. into trillions of dollars of debt to fund militarism.

· Harper, like Bush, denies the reality of climate change and the threat to the whole planet, and especially Canada, from our continued reliance on fossil fuels.

· Harper, like Bush, rejects the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has said he would rescind and not implement this international treaty which Canada has already ratified. Harper s actions could place the entire international regime to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change at risk.

· While Bush is far more socially conservative, Harper would not defend the Charter of Rights and would allow for open votes. His caucus is largely made of the socially conservative Reform and Alliance Party supporters who would defeat many hard won rights. Charter Rights protecting women, gay and lesbian Canadians, and actually all Charter Rights protecting all Canadian citizens and residents would be at risk. The impact of Harper policies on these issues would not differ from those of Bush. Harper has said he would consider using the notwithstanding clause to limit the application of Charter Rights. No Prime Minister has ever said using the notwithstanding clause would be considered.

· Harper, like Bush, would challenge a woman s right to choose. Harper has said he would allow the issue of access to legal abortions to be re-opened through an open vote in the House of Commons.

· Bush was responsible for more executions than any other U.S. Governor of recent times. Harper has suggested the prohibition of capital punishment would be re-opened in Canada.


We must not sleep walk into electing a Canadian version of George W. Bush. Challenge Stephen Harper on these positions.

Harper tells Canadians we should Demand Better. First, Canadians must Demand the truth about the new Canadian Republican Party, masquerading as the Conservative Party of Canada.

We do not have much time.

Perhaps you miss the point. CAP is a political party, capable if elected, of changing the dynamics of our country. We have numerous groups yelling fire, but none seem aware enough to call the firetruck. It is as if all these incredibly intelligent people, who know what is wrong, are simply wringing their hands.

Nobody likes to be criticized. The fact that these groups make statements about what is wrong, but then downplay a real avenue for solution makes no sense. The public needs to ask them why? Some suggest a private discussion. A nudge and a wink promising support etc. It doesn't work, and we are not promising anything. We are taking a stand. We don't like backroom secret deals by anyone. Why is that so hard to deal with? Straightforward to the point facts, solutions and truth, should be part of the election process.

Should CAP wait until after the election to raise these concerns? I find it strange that Canadians buy into the old saying, that 'Canadians are so nice' and that is part of the problem.

We are so nice that we won't call a spade a spade, we'd rather call it a shovel! We protect the spokespeople at our own expense. As long as we the people buy the spin, that we are too nice to stand up and demand responsible, transparently accountable government, they will continue to b.s. us and we will lose our country.

Sadly nice guys finish last, nice guys get walked on and Canadians have accepted this thinking for far too long. We shouldn't be that nice! If someone was threatening to take your home, your way of life and your future, would you not stand up to them? That is what is happening and we need to cause discussion any way we can so we can stop the takeover!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

more facts on Harper & Conservative Party

Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy

Close advisors schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change'.

What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement.

Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.

In Washington, Straussians exert powerful influence from within the inner circle of the White House. In Canada, they roost, for now, in the so-called Calgary School, guiding Harper in framing his election strategies. What preoccupies Straussians in both places is the question of "regime change."

Strauss defined a regime as a set of governing ideas, institutions and traditions. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration, who secretly conspired to make the invasion of Iraq a certainty, had a precise plan for regime change. They weren't out to merely replace Saddam with an American puppet. They planned to make the system more like the U.S., with an electoral process that can be manipulated by the elites, corporate control over the levers of power and socially conservative values.

Usually regime change is imposed on a country from outside through violent means, such as invasion. On occasion, it occurs within a country through civil war. After the American Civil War, a new regime was imposed on the Deep South by the North, although the old regime was never entirely replaced.

Is regime change possible through the electoral process? It's happening in the U.S., where the neocons are succeeding in transforming the American state from a liberal democracy into a corporatist, theocratic regime. As Canada readies for a federal election, the question must be asked: Are we next?

The 'noble lie'

Strauss believed that allowing citizens to govern themselves will lead, inevitably, to terror and tyranny, as the Weimar Republic succumbed to the Nazis in the 1930s. A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough. It must resort to deception -- Strauss's "noble lie" -- to protect citizens from themselves. The elite must hide the truth from the public by writing in code. "Using metaphors and cryptic language," philosophers communicated one message for the elite, and another message for "the unsophisticated general population," philosopher Jeet Heer recently wrote in the Globe and Mail. "For Strauss, the art of concealment and secrecy was among the greatest legacies of antiquity."

The recent outing of star New York Times reporter Judith Miller reveals how today's neocons use the media to conceal the truth from the public. For Straussians, telling Americans that Saddam didn't have WMD's and had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, but that we needed to take him out for geopolitical and ideological reasons you can't comprehend, was a non-starter. The people wouldn't get it. Time for a whopper.

Miller was responsible for pushing into the Times the key neocon lie that Saddam was busy stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. This deception helped build support among Americans for the invasion of Iraq. Miller was no independent journalist seeking the truth nor a victim of neocon duplicity, as she claimed. She worked closely with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff and responsible for coordinating Iraq intelligence and communication strategy. Libby is a Straussian who studied under Paul Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank, and before that, deputy secretary of defense, where he led the 'Invade Iraq" lobby. Wolfowitz studied under Strauss and Allan Bloom, Strauss's most famous student.

Miller cultivated close links to the neocons in the administration and at the American Enterprise Institute, the leading Washington-based neocon think tank. AEI played the key role outside government in fabricating intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq. Straussian Richard Perle, who chaired the Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee until he was kicked off because of a conflict of interest, is a senior fellow at AEI and coordinated its efforts. Miller co-wrote a book on the Middle East with an AEI scholar. Rather than being a victim of government manipulation, Miller was a conduit between the neocons and the American public. As a result of her reporting, many Americans came to believe that Saddam had the weapons. War and regime change followed.

'Regime change' in Canada

As in the U.S., regime change became a Canadian media darling. Before 9-11, the phrase appeared in Canadian newspapers less than ten times a year. It usually referred to changes in leadership of a political party or as part of the phrase "regulatory regime change." Less than a week after 9-11, the phrase began to be used in its Straussian sense, as if a scenario was being choreographed.

From 19 mentions in Canadian newspapers in 2001, regime change soared to 790 mentions in 2002 and 1334 mentions in 2003. With the Iraq invasion accomplished that year, usage tailed off in 2004 (291 mentions) and in 2005 (208 mentions to November 10).

There's one big difference between American and Canadian Straussians. The Americans assumed positions of power and influence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The Canadians have not had much opportunity to show (or is that hide?) their stuff. That may change with a Harper victory.

Paul Wolfowitz's teacher, Allan Bloom, and another Straussian, Walter Berns, taught at the University of Toronto during the 1970s. They left their teaching posts at Cornell University because they couldn't stomach the student radicalism of the '60s. At Toronto, they influenced an entire generation of political scientists, who fanned out to universities across the country.

Two of their students, Ted Morton and Rainer Knopff, went to the University of Calgary where they specialize in attacking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They claim the charter is the result of a conspiracy foisted on the Canadian people by "special interests." These nasty people are feminists, gays and lesbians, the poor, prisoners and refugee-rights groups who are advancing their own interests through the courts at the expense of the general public, these Straussians allege.

The problem with their analysis is that the special interest which makes more use of the courts to advance its interests than all these other groups combined -- business -- receives not a mention. Deception by omission is a common Straussian technique. The weak are targeted while the real culprits disappear.

Harper's mentors

Harper studied under the neocons at the University of Calgary and worked with them to craft policies for the fledgling Reform Party in the late 1980s. Together with Preston Manning, they created an oxymoron, a populist party backed by business.

Ted Morton has turned his attention to provincial politics. He's an elected MLA and a candidate to succeed Premier Ralph Klein. But he did influence the direction of right-wing politics at the federal level as the Canadian Alliance director of research under Stockwell Day.

When Harper threw his hat in the ring for the leadership of the Alliance, Tom Flanagan, the Calgary School's informal leader, became his closest adviser. Harper and Flanagan, whose scholarship focuses on attacking aboriginal rights, entered a four-year writing partnership and together studied the works of government-hater Friedrich Hayek. Flanagan ran the 2004 Conservative election campaign and is pulling the strings as the country readies for the election.

Political philosopher Shadia Drury is an expert on Strauss, though not a follower. She was a member of Calgary's political science department for more than two decades, frequently locking horns with her conservative colleagues before leaving in 2003 for the University of Regina.

Strauss recommended harnessing the simplistic platitudes of populism to galvanize mass support for measures that would, in fact, restrict rights. Does the Calgary School resort to such deceitful tactics? Drury believes so. Such thinking represents "a huge contempt for democracy," she told the Globe and Mail's John Ibbotson. The 2004 federal election campaign run by Flanagan was "the greatest stealth campaign we have ever seen," she said, "run by radical populists hiding behind the cloak of rhetorical moderation."

Straus and 'Western alienation'

The Calgary School has successfully hidden its program beneath the complaint of western alienation. "If we've done anything, we've provided legitimacy for what was the Western view of the country," Calgary Schooler Barry Cooper told journalist Marci McDonald in her important Walrus article. "We've given intelligibility and coherence to a way of looking at it that's outside the St. Lawrence Valley mentality." This is sheer Straussian deception. On the surface, it's easy to understand Cooper's complaint and the Calgary School's mission. But the message says something very different to those in the know. For 'St. Lawrence Valley mentality,' they read 'the Ottawa-based modern liberal state,' with all the negative baggage it carries for Straussians. And for 'Western view,' they read 'the right-wing attack on democracy.' We've provided legitimacy for the radical-right attack on the Canadian democratic state, Cooper is really saying.

A network is already in place to assist Harper in foisting his radical agenda on the Canadian people.

In 2003, he delivered an important address to a group called Civitas. This secretive organization, which has no web site and leaves little paper or electronic trail, is a network of Canadian neoconservative and libertarian academics, politicians, journalists and think tank propagandists.

Harper's adviser Tom Flanagan is an active member. Conservative MP Jason Kenney is a member, as are Brian Lee Crowley, head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and Michel Kelly-Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute, the second and third most important right-wing think tanks after the Fraser Institute.

Civitas is top-heavy with journalists to promote the cause. Lorne Gunter of the National Post is president. Members include Janet Jackson (Calgary Sun) and Danielle Smith (Calgary Herald). Journalists Colby Cosh, William Watson and Andrew Coyne (all National Post) have made presentations to Civitas.

The Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee is not mentioned in relation to Civitas but might as well be a member, if his recent column titled "George Bush is not a liar," is any evidence. In it, Gee repeats the lies the Bush neocons are furiously disseminating to persuade the people that Bush is not a liar.

Neo-con to Theo-con

The speech Harper gave to Civitas was the source of the charge made by the Liberals during the 2004 election -- sure to be revived in the next election -- that Harper has a scary, secret agenda. Harper urged a return to social conservatism and social values, to change gears from neocon to theocon, in The Report's Ted Byfield's apt but worrisome phrase, echoing visions of a future not unlike that painted in Margaret Atwood's dystopian work, A Handmaid's Tale.

The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values, Harper told the assembled conservatives. To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party, he said, and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent.

Movement towards the goal must be "incremental," he said, so the public won't be spooked.

Regime change, one step at a time.

Well done, New Year's Eve Anonymous.

I was just saying to a friend, that I couldn't understand why the
C.A.P. was attacking decent individuals like Maude Barlow (for not
promoting a political party) and Duff Conacher (for promoting a
political party) but left people like Tom Flanagan unscathed.
Thank you for setting that out so clearly:

" ... A network is already in place to assist Harper in foisting his
radical agenda on the Canadian people.

"In 2003, he delivered an important address to a group called
Civitas. This secretive organization, which has no web site and
leaves little paper or electronic trail, is a network of Canadian
neoconservative and libertarian academics, politicians, journalists
and think tank propagandists.

"Harper's adviser Tom Flanagan is an active member.
Conservative MP Jason Kenney is a member, as are Brian Lee
Crowley, head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and
Michel Kelly-Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute, the
second and third most important right-wing think tanks after the
Fraser Institute ..."

These are people who actively promote the destruction of
Canada through deep integration policies which they provide for
the Leader of the Opposition in the Canadian House of Commons.
They're focused and deliberate (not open and honest).

These are a worthy target for political protest. Go to it, C.A.P. And
lay off the Canadians who are, in their own various ways, doing a
lot for Canada.

Nope, I got the point, but my original question still stands: did honey in the flytrap not work, or did you fill it with vinegar right off?

"I find it strange that Canadians buy into the old saying, that 'Canadians are so nice' and that is part of the problem."

"Communications" isn't about *being* nice--one could hardly imagine a more cutthroat profession--it's about *sounding* nice. Big difference.

"Sadly nice guys finish last, nice guys get walked on and Canadians have accepted this thinking for far too long."

Canadians (read: voters) don't like being told what they did wrong.

"Nobody likes to be criticized."

Especially when you're trying to sell them something. See above.

"We shouldn't be that nice!"

Yes, you should. It may be difficult when you're fired up and angry about the state of the nation, but if you don't you're working against your own cause.

You are absolutely correct that dwatch ought to have juxtaposed CAP's platform against that of the others. What a tremendous opportunity it would be since the material is so relevant and the demographic (of their mailing/reader list) so high-value in terms of potential converted voters. So all I'm saying is in that context, "hey a**hole, you forgot to mention CAP!" was probably not the best choice; nor are terms like "facist", regardless of merit it sounds shrill. You should have thought "they're on message with us, how can we get a piece?" How big do you think dwatch's distro list is?

Might I suggest a friendlier press release complimenting dwatch's committment to democracy in Canada and their noble effort to communicate these issues so obviously important to voters, and taking great care to point out how far short the major parties' platforms fall compared to CAP's ... read more online at ... and so on ...

Anyway, I meant this as constructive criticism, not a flame. I have to applaud your dedication to your party and it's core values.

Upon first reading I failed to see an endorsement. It simply states that the Conservates are the <i.>only party making comprehensive government accountability/democratic reform pledges so far... </i>

I haven't checked but will assume that it's a true statement.

I liked the fact that he spoke of the <i>parties that have measurable support of Canadians in election surveys</i> rather than of four parties... score one for public discourse.



---
... just a friendly reminder to always take the internet less seriously than you take your gut!

Rest assured Mary, I intend to expose every Trojan Horse sucking the energy and money from Canadians and not fulfilling their mission or mandate. The country is on the line and there is nothing to be gained by burying our heads in the sand.

It is the eleventh hour, so if you really are the patriot you profess to be and every other Canadians that wants democracy, freedom and peace, ought to write to all of these organizations which we support and demand they state the facts.

How many of us have heard the statements after WWII of Germans who declared they knew nothing of what was going on, or they knew something but really were helpless to stop it? We are sitting on that same situation. The facts are stated, they are clear. The plan for 2010, the North American Union which gives complete freedom to the corporate rulers and turns us into serfs, is underway, so what are you and others like you going to do about it? That is the question.

The house is on fire, blazing like never before and many are willing to sit by and watch just because they were told that the fire department has been called. None will turn on the water, none will carry a pail, none will do anything more than rest assured that the fire-department is on the way, they have been notified and they will deal with it. Well we are losing our country and many are declaring they gave money, they support the CoC, democracy watch and other non-partisan groups and they will leave it to them to do what is necessary. Such blind trust is going to be the demise of Canada.

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to see so many, willing to sit on the sidelines wringing their hands, aka Scarlett saying, 'I'll think about it tomorrow' and wasting energy attacking me for exposing the inaction of the organizations that profess to be the create protectors!

If you believe they can fix it, tell me how? How can the CoC or Democracy Watch fix it? They have no candidates, none? Can they put pressure on the government? If they could, would we be living with the anti-terrorism act, and all other deals that neuter our country? Don't just defend them, explain it to me...how can they save Canada?

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

"Rest assured Mary, I intend to expose every Trojan Horse sucking the energy and money from Canadians and not fulfilling their mission or mandate. The country is on the line and there is nothing to be gained by burying our heads in the sand."

"How can the CoC or Democracy Watch fix it? They have no candidates, none?"

So then why are you campaigning against them? Does the rest of your party support this strategy? They didn't sling mud at CAP, their "crime" was one of omission that could have easily been turned into a plus if managed properly. If I read it right, BC Mary isn't criticizing your objective, rather the approach, as am I. If you aren't managing your communications strategy to get MPs elected or improve your party's proportional vote, that's "energy and money" wasted--there are plenty of more effective, non-partisan ways to put pressure on candidates from the major parties.

"Don't just defend them, explain it to me ... how can they save Canada?"

Hmm ... presuming they can agree that it needs to be "saved" and from what ... perhaps in effective coalition with other like-minded organizations? Certainly not by spending their limited resources competing with each other.

'So then why are you campaigning against them? Does the rest of your party support this strategy? They didn't sling mud at CAP, their "crime" was one of omission that could have easily been turned into a plus if managed properly.'

I am campaigning for their cause, that is why I am encouraging them to rectify their 'crime' (as you put it) of omission. Mud slinging is a term used by you and others to downplay the message. There is no mud here. Simply exposing the fact that the vehicle is available and urging them to use it. There is too much on the line, and they have done a great job of exposing it. So why would we not encourage them to follow it through, why would we not reveal that there message is heard and we are ready to act? Why would we not point out that they are directing people to the path which will not gain any solutions? Why do you object to this being addressed? Denial will not make the threat go away. The CoC and dwatch are not denying the threat exists, they are simply misleading the public on the solutions. As I stated previously they have tried to force change through the mainstream parties and had little success, why continue to travel the route which will not take you to the destination?

'Hmm ... presuming they can agree that it needs to be "saved" and from what ...'

Presuming? The CoC and dwatch as well as CAP acknowlege the problems, and the need to save Canada for the people of Canada. It is quite clear and only someone who embraces the takeover of our nation, and the complete loss of independance and ability for the government of Canada to act freely would ask from what? As if to deny the threat exists. The facts are well documented. It is not a threat if you welcome life under corporate rule. Anyone who cherishes their freedom and democracry would recognize the threat on the horizon.

If the issues were insignificant I would not be pushing so hard for those who have exposed the horrors, to act to stop them, now before it is too late.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

"It is quite clear and only someone who embraces the takeover of our nation, and the complete loss of independance and ability for the government of Canada to act freely would ask from what? As if to deny the threat exists."

Ah, but I did not suggest "it" did not exist; rather that unanimous, politically effective agreement on "it" is often politically difficult to achieve, due almost entirely to the fact that more than one person is involved and all may think freely.

"So why would we not encourage them to follow it through, why would we not reveal that there message is heard and we are ready to act?"

My point exactly. Now we're getting somewhere. It's about the means employed to encourage follow-through. Your swift-kick-in-the-ass approach, especially when directed at non-partisan public interest groups with regular MSM coverage and likely to be sympathetic, seldom bears fruit in a political campaign.

You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. That's all I'm saying.

"Mud slinging is a term used by you and others to downplay the message."

You know the old rule of business, if one customer complains there's 100 who simply grumble under their breath and go elsewhere. If (see above) a few people who are more-or-less sympathetic to your cause (and interested enough to comment) saw it that way, multiply by 100 and realize a) what you *meant* is not the issue; and b) and having truth on your side is (sadly) irrelevant ...

Rule #1 of campaign strategy: don't smack the voters. The opponents, yes, but not the voters.

"It is not a threat if you welcome life under corporate rule. Anyone who cherishes their freedom and democracry would recognize the threat on the horizon."

Ouch.

'Rule #1 of campaign strategy: don't smack the voters. The opponents, yes, but not the voters.' I must admit that your strategy is quite revealing. Don't deal with the issues, attack the messenger.

If CAP holds itself out as a political force, it better be one - we are and we act accordingly -if we did not then you should criticize
If CAP holds itself out as a party with backbone it better show some - we do - if we don't you should call us on it
If CAP declares that the country is being lost, it better prove it -we have - if we didn't you should call us on it
If CAP declares we have the solutions, we know how to save Canada - we better show you how - we have- if we don't you should be questioning our platform

If a group hold itself out to the public as 'non-partisan' group - it better follow that - they are not

Your statement that a swift kick in the ass is not the answer, - I must tell you there was nothing swift about it, we have tried privately, we have tried when our members wanted to hold meetings, privately they are able to keep the truth quiet. These are publicly funded 'non-partisan' groups, the public has a right to know. If honey worked that would be fine, but it has not, there is a long history on this issue and it is now time to open it to public view.

When I declared I was going to run CAP and not NDP, I was told matter of fact, that my local area was planning to start a chapter and planning to ask me to head it, but not anymore. When I was NDP I was asked to speak out at a CoC forum against BMD, I did.

If the public continues to be afraid of the truth, we will continue to be inundated with the mask! If we keep putting people on pedestals in order to fulfill our ideals that someone is out there somewhere taking care of business, we the people become lazy. We redirect our responsibility to sift out facts for ourselves and rely on a proxy instead. This is not the purpose of democracy.

Perhaps your statement that if one person complains could also be applied to my complaint, but would you see it that way? I have recieved numerous letters of support and thanks for exposing this, you are attacking the personal comments and trying to make it sound like I was attacking voters but that is a total fabrication. You know it and I know it.

I wonder what would happen if you actually looked at the issues?




---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

"I must admit that your strategy is quite revealing. Don't deal with the issues, attack the messenger."

You are correct, the issue speaks for itself, and I wasn't attacking the messenger so much as the message, and that particular one. And I wasn't trying to "attack" so much as offer a bit of constructive criticism.

"... there is a long history on this issue"

I haven't seen any research linking Democracy Watch (specifically) to either overt or covert partisan activity--you may be right, and perhaps that is the piece of info I'm missing.

"I wonder what would happen if you actually looked at the issues?"

I spend a lot of time looking at the issues, thanks, and I've been following CAP's platform (with varying degrees of support) since the Hellyer days. Hence I'd like to see CAP get more of the political limelight. And I think that's the source of our unfortunate argument here: I get the impression you think I disagree on the issues or find your complaint to be wholly invalid and so I'm taking cheap shots at the messenger like so many of the garden-variety "dissenters" on this forum do. I'll be clear: my comment was on the particular of wording of the open letter, and purely from a communications/leverage standpoint. As you point out, I might be 100% wrong--just because it didn't "test well" with me doesn't mean a heck of a lot.

I'll waste no more of your valuable campaign time: I honestly mean you no ill will or personal insult, and I'm not in your riding anyway! Best of luck.