Incestuous Little Bastards, Aren't They!

From an article in The Guardian:

Brodie did his PhD in political science at the University of Calgary under Ted Morton, an American-born former academic and activist and known as the dean of the "Calgary school", an intellectual movement that has remade Canadian conservatism along American-lines.

Yeah, that's this Ted Morton. Hat-Tip to The Galloping Beaver.

I Wasn't Sleeping, I Was Just Resting My Eyes

...for a month or so. Anyway, I'm back, at least for a week until I head overseas again. In the meantime, here's a shorter:

Shorter Paul Jackson: "Anyone who criticizes the Tories for any reason is a Liberal stooge. Oh yeah, and Jason Kenney is teh r0xx0rs."

Judge to Rob Anders: "Nice Try, You Snivelling Little Jackoff"

More or less, anyway:

Calgary judge overturns Tory MP's acclamation
Last Updated: Friday, March 16, 2007 | 1:53 PM MT
CBC News

A judge has overturned the acclamation of Tory MP Rob Anders and ordered a new nomination meeting in the riding of Calgary West.

Apparently Anders was a wee bit worried that some of his constituents might have noticed what an appalling piece of work he is, so he and his friends essentially rigged the nomination process. And got spanked for it in court, much to the joy of sentient beings everywhere.

A gentle reminder about Rob Anders:

"[Honouring Nelson Mendela is a] total political-correctness poster-boy thing... He was a Communist. He was a terrorist..." --Rob Anders, 2001

The Swift-Boating of Navdeep Singh Bains

Harper shouted down by Liberals
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 | 6:05 PM ET
CBC News
Stephen Harper was shouted down with cries of "shame, shame" during question period Wednesday after he raised a media report that said a Liberal MP is the son-in-law of a man police allegedly interviewed in connection with the Air India bombing case.

Ok, let's think about this for a moment. Nowhere did the media report say that Navdeep Singh Bains' father-in-law was actually a suspect, nor did it say anything about Bains himself. So, basically, the story's a complete non-starter. That, of course, did not prevent Harper from passing the following chain of logic on to his drooling sycophants: Bain's father-in-law was interviewed in connection with an act of terrorism, therefore the father-in-law is a terrorist, therefore Bains is probably a terrorist sympathizer, therefore the Liberals like terrorism. It's basically the same thing that's going on in the states with the silly babbling about Barrack HUSSEIN Obama's middle name, and that's doubtless where Harper got the idea.

And of course, he refused to apologize, blaming the Liberals for the fact that he didn't even get to deliver his insult before he was rightly shouted down. What a twerp.

Holding Their Feet to the Fire

Kyoto bill forced through parliament
By ALEXANDER PANETTA

OTTAWA (CP) - The country sailed toward uncharted constitional waters following a vote in the Commons to force the Conservative government to respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto accord.

The three opposition parties overpowered the minority government in adopting legislation that - upon approval by the Senate - gives the Tories just 60 days to table a plan to meet Kyoto's greenhouse-gas targets.

Ok, first of all, a slap upsides the head for c-news. What the hell do you mean "forced through parliament?" The bill was put to a vote, and passed. Yes, it's somewhat unusual for an opposition backbencher's bill to pass, and yes, the Tories tried to have it thrown out on a technicality, but that bill was no more "forced" through than any other bill.

Secondly, in case you were wondering how sincere the Tories' new-found environmentalism is, here you go:

But the government hinted strongly that it would simply ignore the law, and would be prepared to face any resulting lawsuits or even a non-confidence motion that could cause an election.

And now you know.

It's Panicin' Time!

Shorter Neil Waugh: "Heads up Alberta! The U.N., the eastern news media, Stephen Harper, and John Baird are coming for your money!"

Fun though it is to watch conservatives mauling their own, I think we're all going to be very tired, very soon, of the complaining coming out of this province. If we're not already, that is.

Well, this is embarassing

Navy patrol can go ahead, O'Connor says
Last Updated: Thursday, January 18, 2007 | 10:45 AM AT
CBC News

Canada's defence minister said Ottawa is giving the navy more money so it can go ahead with a patrol off the East Coast after concerns about funding had postponed the voyage.

Hmm, that's odd. Not so long ago, I seem to recall this:

"The United States defends its sovereignty, the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," [some jackass] said.

So, Harper's plan to vigorously defend Canada's sovereignty was to bankrupt the navy. Um, I think I see a flaw in that. The most annoying thing about this whole situation is that it inevitably leads to this:

"The Americans have consistently accused Canada of having leaky security measures, and this will just prove to them that we are not even patrolling our own coasts for security measures."

Yeah, pretty much. Anyway, The Galloping Beaver has a more in-depth look at this story.

You... Are... Outta Here!

Yes, well, as expected, Rona "We Mean Business" Ambrose got turfed from the Environment Portfolio today, and shuffled off to baby-sit the provincial governments via the Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio. By the way, Rona, thanks for the calendar! Indeed, the mail this morning contained a lovely 2007 wall calendar featuring pictures of, well, Rona Ambrose (no, not that kind of picture; get your mind out of the gutter!). Yes, the freakin' Minister of the Environment sent out a multi-page unsolicited vanity mass-mailing to about 40,000 households. Anyway, what of her replacement? It's this guy. My first impression is pretty much "meh." He's apparently a "rising star" in the Conservative party, whatever that means (Ed.: It means he's going to end up in intergovernmental affairs, and soon), and he shares his party's unhealthy obsession with the Liberals. Beyond that, hard to say at this time.

However, the ritual sacrifice of Rona Ambrose was not the only thing going on, cabinet-wise, today. Let's take a look at the other moves, shall we?

Rob Nicholson: from House leader to justice minister and attorney general. Ok, fine, whatever. At least Vic Toews isn't in there anymore.

Vic Toews: from justice minister to president of the Treasury Board. This is a good move, if only because it is hard to imagine a person less suited to being justice minister than Vic Toews.

Monte Solberg: from Immigration to Human Resources and Social Development. The idea of Monte Solberg and "social development" being mentioned in the same sentence is hilarious. However, he'll do less harm there than in Immigration, which requires one not to pal around with foaming racists.

Peter Van Loan: from Intergovernmental Affairs and sport to government House leader and democratic reform minister. I don't know much about this fellow, except that he seems to have close ties to the Baltic nations.

Diane Finley: from Human Resources to Citizenship and Immigration. She's been fairly quiet in parliament, although she did get up and blather against same-sex marriage a couple of times.

Harper also made Jason Kenney Dogsbody Secretary of State for multiculturalism and Canadian identity. He did this because he needed, once more, to demonstrate his unbridled contempt for Canada and Canadians in general.

Hello Again!

Well, we're back. And where were we, you ask? Buried in end-of-term stuff, we respond. However, the exams have been marked, the marks submitted, and life returns to a semblance of normal. So what did we miss? Some of the highlights, so to speak, of the last couple of weeks:

Ed Stelmach becomes premier of Alberta. The official Oi! Thump! position on this is that it could have been worse. Oh boy could it have been worse! And now we'll have the fun of watching Stelmach try to find a place for Ted Morton where he won't be able to do too much damage. Don't be surprised if Morton ends up running for the Alberta Alliance at some point in the future.

Stephane Dion became leader of the federal Liberals. Um, ok. A surprising choice, and there are questions about his electability, particularly in the West. However, once again, it could have been worse.

Parliament refused to ditch same-sex marriage. Not that they had much of a choice. Anyway, the next day, the sun amazingly rose in the East and set in the West, and has continued doing so since. Some people are still refusing to take the hint, though.

The Iraq Study Group recommended that George W. Bush do a number of highly reasonable things to rectify that situation. He will, of course, do none of them.

Rona Ambrose made a rather amusing Freudian slip. "These are the kinds of things we can show Canadians that we mean business when it comes to our environmental agenda," said Ambrose. Yes Rona, we know that your government has business, along with heavy industry, at the heart of its environmental policies.

Anyway, stay tuned for Friday Archaeology Blogging!

In Which A Mr. Peter MacKay, Esq., Of Pictou, Nova Scotia, Makes Tie Domi's 'List'

Good article here about MacKay's latest bout of petulance. The best line:

Stephen Harper cannot have a man child holding Canadian diplomacy in his hands.

Of course, as we all know, this is just a horrible plot by desperate Liberals to steer attention away from the blinding brilliance that is Stephen Harper and co.

There's doins' a-transpirin'

The usual BBTM (Better Bloggers Than Me) crew has good, if scary and depressing, stuff about the federal Tories basically creating a slushfund for the Bush Whitehouse. Check out Cathie from Canada and Creekside, and prepare to be appalled.

Suffering the Little Children

Let judges deal with kids as young as 10: Toews
Last Updated Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:45:32 EDT
CBC News

The federal government want courts to have jurisdiction over offenders as young as 10 to help them avoid further crimes, Justice Minister Vic Toews says.

When I saw this story this morning, my first impression was that it was another right-wing ploy to kick the shit out of young people. Let's find out if I was right, shall we?

The Youth Criminal Justice Act makes children older than 12 subject to courts, but under that age, social welfare agencies are the main means of dealing with delinquents.

On Monday, Toews proposed lowering the limit to 10 years of age, saying the point would be to help the children, not jail them.

Hmm, maybe I was wrong! Helping 10-year-olds, rather than incarcerating them! What could be better?

The courts should have that jurisdiction so they "can order appropriate treatment," he told reporters at the Canadian Bar Association conference in St. John's.

"Uh, Captain, I'm picking up a warning light here. A Conservative is using disturbingly vague phrases like 'appropriate treatment'". Yeah, and we know all about what the right thinks appropriate treatment of young people is, don't we.

The change would not necessarily mean charges would be laid, but the courts need some mechanism to intervene in cases where young children act in a criminal way, such as becoming involved with gangs and drugs, he said.

"Sometimes children, by the time they're 12, because the courts have been unable to access them under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, have in fact established a pattern of conduct that will be harmful over the long term," Toews said.

Ok, here's where the problems really start. Toews, being the nasty little piece of shit that he is, is attempting to paint a picture of children falling victim to a life of crime because our namby-pamby justice system can only sit back and helplessly watch while it happens. Which, of course, is bullshit (the following passage is from a document called Child Welfare 2000 on the Human Resources and Social Development Canada website):

When child welfare authorities confirm the need for protection following an investigation, or when circumstances change in an open case, a child may be taken into the care of the child welfare authority by means of a warrant or a court order to remove the child from the home. An application for a warrant or court order to search for and remove (apprehend) a child from the home is made to the court or a justice of the peace, depending on the jurisdiction.

In situations where a child is believed to be at immediate risk of harm, the worker (or police officer with statutory authority) may remove the child immediately without a warrant or court order, when and if delays may further endanger the child. In these instances, a court appearance takes place within a prescribed period of time to justify the action and to determine whether the child is in need of protection.

A judge hearing a protection case may also consider an application from the child welfare authority for a custody order for a child found to be in need of protection. A court order for a child's protection can range from returning the child to the parents or guardians under the supervision of a child welfare authority, to temporary or permanent custody by the authority. Each jurisdiction has its own rules and limitations on orders; these are defined in detail in the following chapters.

Far more despicably, he's also implying that social workers will actually sit back, look at a case file, and say "Yeah, he's nine years old and he's dealing crack, no need to intervene here!", but that's a matter for another day. What's got Toews' knickers in a big sweaty knot has nothing to do with any inability of the courts to get at these kids, since the courts plainly can intervene. It is simply that he cannot bring criminal sanctions to bear against 10-year-old children. Back to the CBC article:

Proponents of the change argue that, in some circumstances, children aged 12 who have criminal connections — carrying drugs for a gang, for example — may be too set in their ways to rehabilitate. Opponents say children under that age are not aware of the consequences of their actions.

The current act is based on the principles of preventing crime "by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person’s offending behaviour," rehabilitation and ensuring young offenders are "subject to meaningful consequences."

And that's what he wants inflicted on 10-year-olds. So, if you're ten, and your mother's abusive boyfriend is pimping you to his creep pedophile friends, take what comfort you can from the notion that Canada's Justice Minister wants you to face "meaningful consequences".

Fuck, Mackay, Grow A Spine!!

Better blogs than this one have already commented on this piece of appalling sycophancy, but I thought I'd get my two cents' worth in as well.

Fri, April 14, 2006
Pete makes nice with Condi Rice
By CP

WASHINGTON -- Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mac-Kay was so appreciative after his first visit yesterday with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he nearly ran out of superlatives.

I had thought that I was past being surprised at the depths to which the Conservatives would stoop, but I must confess that I was wrong. Fuck me, what a gang of whimpering little quislings they are.

"I'm delighted to be here. I've always been a fan of yours," he told Rice at a news conference.

In hindsight, I am amazed he didn't ask for her autograph.

"And much of our discussion today confirmed what I already knew about you from having followed your career.

"We're very grateful and I personally extend my thanks to you for your generous and very kind invitation to be with you."

Mackay afterwards wrote a 3,000-word LiveJournal post in leet speak about how Rice totally roxx0rs.

Rice smiled politely.

Hoping, no doubt, that Mackay would not actually wet his pants.

Anyway, perhaps I'm being a little hard on ol' Pete here. Perhaps his gushing praise of Rice is based on sincere professional respect, and the sure knowledge that the current points of contention between Canada and the U.S. can now be worked out to the benefit of all. Let's find out!

United States Hails Decision on Canadian Softwood Lumber Imports
World Trade Organization Appellate Body says imports threaten U.S. lumber industry

The United States has hailed an April 13 report by the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body that says dumped and subsidized softwood lumber imports from Canada threaten the U.S. lumber industry with “material injury.”

Ok, so not so much on the softwood lumber dispute. What about the whole border ID thing?

U.S. says border passport a must
By BETH GORHAM

WASHINGTON (CP) - There'll be no wiggle room on new U.S. security requirements for travellers when Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay meets Thursday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, American officials say.

Hmmm. So Mackay's just going to let us take it up the ass on this one, too? Jesus Christ, man, what are we paying you for? In other Canada-US related news, there's this:

Canada's Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has a meeting scheduled with Michael Chertoff, the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary for late Tuesday, but there is no word on whether they will discuss the new rules.

Is it legal to have that much incompetence in one room at the same time?

Did I Just Feel A Sudden Twinge Of Sympathy For Stephen Harper?

Shorter Ted Byfield: "The problem isn't that Harper's cabinet choices are fucked up, it's that they're not fucked up enough."

New Tory Needs Love... Badly!

'I won't quit' embattled Emerson tells CBC
Last Updated Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:27:20 EST
CBC News

International Trade Minister David Emerson says he isn't going to bow to pressure and step down and face the electorate again in a byelection.

In his first public comments in more than two days, Emerson told CBC News in Vancouver on Friday night, "No, I'm not going to quit."

"We've got at least three, perhaps more, members of Parliament who have crossed the floor or opted to sit as an Independent. Frankly, my circumstances are not any different than those."

You have got to be shitting me. Besides, the CPC needs somebody to help it keep its spin straight. Viz:

But Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said Friday that Emerson's situation is different.

"It's one that took place in close proximity to the election. Unlike a previous situation where we saw an individual essentially salvage a government in exchange for a vote, receiving a cabinet post. I don't think anyone could attribute the same nefarious motives here."

And with that, the Conservative Government essentially said "Fuck You" to Canadians in general. It followed that with: "You kept us out of power for more than a decade, and by fuck you are going to pay for it. You were dumb enough to fall for the 'more moderate' bullshit that pulled during the campaign, and you let us in the door, and now we are going to do to you whatever the fuck we want. Ethical government? Fuck that."

To their credit though, conservatives (and some Conservatives) around the country are plenty pissed with the new government's blatant lack of common decency. We're all well aware of Garth Turner's views on the matter, but even the folks over at the hilariously named "Proud To Be Canadian" blog weighed in, issuing a persipacious and wise statement on the issue:

Raaaaah! CBC Bad! Ann Coulter Good!

Ok, maybe not so much.

Whine, Whine, Whine

I was a tad worried that the Conservative victory in the election was going to herald the death of one of my favourite literary genres: the Conservative Post-Election Whinerant (see particularly glorious example here). However, as it turns out, I had nothing to fear...

Family Advocate Pleased to See 'Man of Integrity' as Canada's New PM
By Chad Groening
January 25, 2006

(AgapePress) - A Canadian pro-family activist says while he is very pleased that the Conservatives have finally returned to power after 13 years of Liberal Party rule, he is disappointed that so many of his fellow countrymen voted for the outgoing party -- which he views as "corrupt."

Stephen Harper told thousands of supporters in Calgary that Canadians voted for change -- and that his party will take the lead in delivering that change. But the Conservatives did not win enough seats to form a majority government. As Brian Rushfeldt explains, that will mean a coalition must be struck with the Left.

"One hundred and twenty-four Conservatives cannot pass a piece of legislation without joining forces either with the block or the ND," says the co-founder and executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition. "That concerns me -- that they're going to have to form a coalition with one of those other parties that don't have much in common with us."

Ah yes, the governing party is actually going to have to talk to people with whom it might not be in 100% agreement on everything. Terrifying. Think of the awfulness that might ensue from government by coalition! Broad ranges of opinion being put forth, moderation being the order of the day, the CFAC agenda not being put into practice, etc. It's rather easy to see why this particular little fascist is upset.

Whatsit Six of Our Election Guide

Presenting... The Conservative Party of Canada!

At this point, they can taste it. It's right there, so close, only a couple of weeks not even until they can, um, well, what can they do, should the current poll numbers hold up and they form the next government? Well, not as much as you'd think. They're not going to ban gay marriage, because the courts would slap them silly. Nor will they use the notwithstanding clause to push it through, since doing something that stupidly petty would mean that the next election results for them will make Kim Campbell look like a landslide winner. They won't send us to Iraq, although they would probably like to. Their best friends to the South of us are going through a bit of a rough patch, so cozying up to them isn't really an option. That pretty much leaves wrecking the economy, and, although they'll give it their best shot, the Canadian economy is fairly resilient. So they'll muddle along until the Canadian populace decides that the Liberals have been punished enough, and then they'll go away again. In the meantime we'll get to laugh at Stephen Harper.

If this party were an animal, it would be: A pet rock. Not terribly interesting, and useful only for breaking things.



Position on environmental concerns? They're in favour of environmentalism, as long as nobody offers them any money at all to be otherwise.

Attitude towards our friends to the South? Alternates between being slavishly sycophantic and pretending not to be slavishly sycophantic.

Percent likelihood that they'll try to repeal gay marriage? 0%. See above.

Is Oi! Thump! voting for them? No.

Next in line is, I believe, the First Peoples National Party of Canada.

Harperius Minimus

Harper pledges to boost military presence in cities
Last Updated Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:15:05 EST
CBC News

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was back on the campaign trail this week, promising to beef up military presence in major cities to respond to emergencies.

In other news, Harper announced that he will form a special "Praetorian Guard" unit for Ottawa. When asked why, he answered "Oh, no reason" and smirked.

"A large number of our cities have no military presence," Harper said while campaigning on Vancouver Island Tuesday.

Um, good?

If he's elected Jan. 23, Harper said, territorial battalions made up of 100 regular troops and 400 or more reservists would be stationed in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, the Toronto area and other major metropolitan areas.

"This is a full military presence," he added. "Obviously we would anticipate that its domestic need would be in case of disaster...

Oh come on. We're not (very) stupid over here. I would like to know under exactly what circumstances we would have tanks in the streets. Meteor strike? Escaped circus animals? Labour unrest?

but obviously they would be military forces that could be forward-deployed in the event of more serious military conflict elsewhere.

The Conservative leader said he would boost the military's presence in British Columbia and across Western Canada because the West Coast is vital to national sovereignty.

Dude, the main threat (and believe me it's not much of a threat at all) to Canada's sovereignty in the West is whiny Albertans. Not something that requires active urban military deployment.

Listen All Of Y'all It's A Sabotage

After monthys of travel by dogsled, blimp, Sopwith Camel, tramp steamer, rocket-ship, actual camel, and hansom cab, the top-notch Oi! Thump! Election Monitoring Team arrived in Canada to keep an eye on the upcoming federal election, just so that things are, you know, on the up-and-up. Of course, the fact that we live in Canada helped out, a bit. Anyway, herein begins our election coverage.

Klein to Meet with Harper Next Week
Josh Pringle
Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:02 PM

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein says he was unfairly blamed for hurting the Conservatives in the last election.

Given that King Ralph the First deliberately sought out every opportunity to make the Conservative party look like twits (I know, not much help needed in that department), this is laying it on a bit thick. It's sort of like Julius Caesar claiming he was unfairly blamed for the Gallic Wars.

Klein says he won't duck questions on Alberta's health care reforms in order to protect the federal Conservatives in the next election.

In the 2004 election, the Liberals portrayed Alberta's health reforms as a threat to medicare.

And Ralph Klein portrayed the Liberals as oil- and money-hungry communists, slavering after Alberta's vast mountains of wealth. And the Alberta media bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Klein says the federal Liberals may use him as their health care "whipping boy" in the next campaign.

Translation: Ralph Klein begs the Liberals, on his knees, to make him their health care bitch.

Klein says he'll meet federal Tory Leader Stephen Harper next week.

Oooh, to be a fly on the wall for that one...

Stephen: "So, uh, Ralph, this time please don't do anything to irrevocably damage my political career, OK?"

Ralph: "Why not?"

Stephen: "Because we can offer you, uh, lemme see... Well, if we're in power, then you get to...to...um. Uh, I can give you Paul Jackson's phone number..."

IT'S ELECTION TIME

And that means it's time for Oi! Thump!'s first ever election guide!!! We're running down (in every sense of the phrase) the various political parties engaged in the titanic struggle for control of Parliament. Without further ado, but with much snark, here's a capsule look at the first five parties' answers to a few fun policy questions. Oh, and we're doing this in alphabetical order, so if you don't see your favourite/least favourite party here yet, unwad thy panties and settle down.

BLOC QUEBECOIS

No maudits .ca suffix at the end of their website address, non monsieur!! Formed a few years back to push the Quebec nationalist agenda, their brief turn as Official Opposition caused much sucking in of breath on the parts of people who didn't realize that the BQ had actually been democratically elected to that position. Under a BQ government...
Canada is to the U.S. as that really unpopular guy who plays D&D is to the prom queen, who's actually a real bitch.
If you're a woman you're probably very beautiful.
Will you, as a minimum wage earner, get health care? Mais Oui!
Got Decriminalized Marijuana? Who cares?
Gay Marriage? Maybe.
Historical Parallel: William Wallace, as over-portrayed by Mel Gibson.

CANADIAN ACTION PARTY

Seem to be a sort of happy-clappy, Yeah Canada! anti-globalization type of outfit. Not that there's anything really wrong with that. If the CAP wins...
Canada is to the U.S. as Hickory High is to that team they beat at the end of Hoosiers.
If you're a woman you're empowered. Right frickin' now.
Will you, as a minimum wage earner, get health care? In theory.
Got Decriminalized Marijuana? Yes (it's good for glaucoma, fibromyalgia, and bugging the shit out of the States).
Gay Marriage? Yes (see above, but without the references to glaucoma and fibromyalgia).
Historical Parallel?: William Wallace, somewhat but not a lot closer to actual historical reality than the BQ.

CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY

For those of you who think the Conservative Party is a bunch of namby-pamby left-wing heathen stooges, we give you the Christian Heritage Party. If, God forbid, they or their ilk should happen to gain power...
Canada is to the U.S. as a "godly" woman is to her "godly" husband.
If you're a woman you shouldn't be reading this post, harlot! Get your pregnant ass back to the kitchen! And take those damn shoes off!
Will you, as a minimum wage earner, get health care? No. All healthcare funds will be diverted to dealing with camels stuck in the eyes of needles.
Got Decriminalized Marijuana? You are going to Hell just for reading this question.
Gay Marriage? Blah blah family values blah blah blah Sodom and Gomorrah blah blah filthy sodomites blah blah blah blah Leviticus blah blah blah blah tradition family blah blah blah. No, in other words.
Historical Parallel?: Ivan the Terrible

COMMUNIST PARTY OF CANADA

Historical relics are great. Nibbling away at the fringes of the labour movement the Communist party actually has had electoral success in Canada, but generally not at the federal level, and not for a long long time. If the hammer and sickle flag waves over Parliament...
Canada is to the U.S. as a slug is to a salt shaker.
If you're a woman you are equal, comrade!
Will you, as a minimum wage earner, get health care? Yes, and transplant organs will be harvested from the rich!
Got Decriminalized Marijuana? Maybe.
Gay Marriage? Marriage? Like in a masses-opiating church? Hmmm...
Historical Parallel?: Pick an obvious one.

CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA

We close off Day One of our election guide with the first of the "big" parties that we've come across. Unholy spawn of the old Reform/Alliance thingy and the non-progressive bit of the Progressive Conservatives, the new-fangled Conservative Party would be a lock for a massive majority government if they could just keep their candidates from ever saying anything about any topic. Ever. If they were to succeed in that...
Canada is to the U.S. as An 18-year-old first-time prison inmate with nice round buttocks is to a hairy 45-year-old lifer named "Spike."
If you're a woman you have all the rights of a man, so long as you're not dumb enough to actually try any of them (with apologies to The Clash).
Will you, as a minimum wage earner, get health care? Certainly, as long as you don't get sick or injured.
Got Decriminalized Marijuana? No damn way, never, not in a million... wait, the Fraser Institute said WHAT?!?!?!??! Um, we'll get back to you.
Gay Marriage? See the Christian Heritage Party entry for this question.
Historical Parallel?: Tony Blair, oddly enough.

See y'all tomorrow!