How to Win an Election

How to Win An Election

Politics for Joe 22

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For: Lake Superior News

Not likely to entice voters to your side...unless you're a released criminal

I've just been reading some tweets from @acoyne - Andrew Coyne of Maclean's and CBC. His complaint is that elections are always covered in the same way: Why are you ahead? Why are you behind? Why are you such a loser?

He has a point. We do get so fascinated by the horse race that we never get around to wondering why the horses are racing in the first place. Worse yet, coverage becomes absolutely presidential in nature. Everything becomes all about the leader, what he (or rarely she) says/does/wears. The daily gleanings are aligned into constellations and a political horoscope is drawn.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone. The first reason for covering the horse race is that ... it's easier. The groundwork is done for the earnest columnist by the National Press Gallery asking questions and filing daily to television, the big papers and associated internet versions of both.

The second reason is that if the earnest columnist is going to spend two or three hours typing out delightful metaphors and grave analysis it would be nice if all this deathless prose was actually read by someone. And while the usual cliche is that familiarity breeds contempt, familiarity also breeds interest. You know (or think you know) Steve, Mike, Jack, Gilles and plucky Liz. Actually what you know is an image created of them, but that's a topic for another time. The bottom line is that you want to know how they're doing, as individuals and as party leaders and as potential Prime Ministers.

The third and final reason (as this introduction finally creaks towards a conclusion) is that you don't feel a need to know what you don't know. What is the situation on the ground in North Battleford, Chicoutimi or Moncton? If you live there, you care. If you don't live there ... the Canucks have a helluva chance at the Cup eh?

And yet that is the battleground. 308 seats and one has to win 100+ of them in order to set the agenda for the nation, with or without coalition partners on either a permanent or piecemeal basis.

My promise when I began this column was to reveal the actual working structure of electoral politics. So - how are individual ridings actually won or lost?

First - and this will seem obscenely obvious - you must know your riding. In specific, what are its fears? People vote to eliminate fear, not to achieve dreams. That is why negative advertising regrettably works. "Here's the scary sh!t. Vote for Me and that scary sh!t won't happen." And yes, voting patterns do emerge from that raw, gutshot level.

Now, when you have identified the fear, what are you going to do about it? Is the fear unemployment, high energy prices, not enough doctors, the highway is lousy ... ? Whatever It - the big fear - whatever It is you must address it. You're the tailor with the fly swatter who killed twelve with one stroke. Prove it.

This is the point where failed campaigns ... er, fail. One of two things happen in a failed campaign: either the National campaign is repeated chapter and verse, and/or the wrong issues are addressed.

Example: Not long after I got out of the speechwriting business (I still do some, but only for candidates I absolutely trust) , there was a provincial election. I was still tangentially involved in party politics so I was literally in the room when a big box of election material arrived from the Liberal Party of Ontario. They were flyers talking about rent control with pictures of highrises in full colour. Nice looking, literally slick to both the eye and touch. My advice: burn them. Why? There are no highrises in the riding.

Therefore, the local candidate must sift through the broader campaign themes to find the ones that will address the identified riding fears. You will get little or no help from the Party's head office, because a) the head office is usually staffed by idiots, and b) they are idiots because they don't know your riding. You do.

Secondly, if you happen to be the incumbent, know and obey the first rule of salesmanship. Under-promise and over-deliver. Example: You need to get your car fixed. If the mechanic tells you it will be ready Tuesday and it's ready Wednesday, he's a shiftless layabout. If he tells you Thursday and it's ready Wednesday, he's your guy, he's the man, his name is going to be mentioned favourably to all your friends.

The worst example of that I ever saw was an incumbent who, at his campaign launch, wrote down all the promises he'd made in the previous election. Now, he hadn't delivered on any of them, "But this time will be different!" I knew he was doomed.

We'll be looking closer at the ridings in Northwestern Ontario in coming weeks, but for now, watch the local campaigns as they develop. Which touch a chord in your heart? Which don't? Make your wagers accordingly. I will be.

Be seeing you.

Campaign Trail 2011: Iggy Stardust and the Snide Look of Harp(er)

Campaign Trail 2011: Iggy Stardust and the Snide Look of Harp(er)


Inside Television 547
Publication Date: 4-1-11
By: Hubert O'Hearn

rejected costuming for Michael Ignatieff's campaign tour...
the eyepatch was just a wee bit much

Yes it's April Fool's Day. Your fly's undone. Made you look! Ha hah.

Now that we have that out of the way, clearly there is a bigger media story in Canada than my research for the upcoming 'The Future Was Television'. Even bigger than Neil Young being bigger than Justin Bieber, although I do love when justice is not only served, it gets served with the silverware and the good company plates.

In case you hadn't notice there's an election going on. And by the way, if you hadn't noticed, please do the rest of us a favour and don't vote. Yes yes, one isn't supposed to say that. Public duty! Make it mandatory! Soldiers died for your rights!

Well no. As millions of jilted lovers can attest there is not much worse than pretending to care when in fact you don't. If you don't care, then don't care. If you do care, I highly recommend cbc.ca's excellent Voter Compass poll. At the end of thirty gutshot issue questions (e.g. Should all troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan now?) you'll know where you stand in relation to the parties. Honestly, I think this is one of the best things CBC has ever done.

My own score, which I mention in a nod to journalistic ethics, put me right where I thought I was. I stand with the Liberal Party, albeit at a distance, like a married couple who enter a party fresh from a quarrel in the car. They put on an appearance of being together while he is noticing that hot little NDP standing over there in the corner.

I just had a mental  image of Jack Layton in a leggy pink cocktail dress beckoning 'come hither'. It's not a pretty picture.

But in these early stages, just what is the imaging presented to you? As I suspected, the issues are coalescing around a central theme of Who Do You Trust? The Liberals' first TV ad has a certain familiarity about it: a series of newspaper clippings listing Tory scandals with unflattering snapshots of a rather snide Prime Minister resembling a cross between Donald Trump and one of Tony Soprano's street captains. Now where have I seen this before?

Ah yes. The ad is a virtual carbon copy of the ad the Conservatives used against Paul Martin in the post-Gomery Commission election. It worked then and I suspect it will now. It plays into the basic mistrust people have with government. After all, who amongst us has not dealt with some unfathomable government program, seen a tax refund vanish in a puff of smoke, or otherwise look fondly at street protesters in Cairo and wonder if they’re booked for the summer.

The Conservative response is a tar baby. The more Stephen Harper yammers on about coalitions, the more appealing he makes the idea. We can ignore the famous letter that Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc keeps waving about, wherein Harper indicates that coalitions are a grand idea so long as they work in his favour. But here's the other side of the story.

The Liberals are promising money to put your kids through school. You like that idea? Sure you do. The NDP pledge to cap interest rates on credit cards. Would you like to be paying less in debt service for crap you've already bought? Sure you would. So would a coalition give you both these things? Hmmm, the voter thinks, that might be a tasty looking buffet. All the Conservatives have offered of theoir own so far is the equivalent of a stale sandwich: A tax cut. Five years from now. If the budget is balanced. And the Tories are re-elected. And the Rocky mountains magically turn into tasty, tasty mounds of butterscotch pudding.

The latest tomfoolery – just announced today as I write this column for Friday – is that Harper wants Ignatieff one-on-one in a steel – er, in a debate. It won't happen, but it would be glorious if it did. As a professor, I'm quite sure Ignatieff is well-accustomed to melting graduate students presenting ill-defended theses. Also, if anything is going to motivate the NDP ground forces, it is being ignored.

Meanwhile, Ignatieff is being quite literally well-positioned. He always has a group of people behind him when he speaks and I’m starting to suspect that his swanky red scarf is intended to be the modern equivalent of the red rose in Pierre Trudeau’s lapel. He appears relaxed and confident, particularly next to an increasingly shrill Harper.

Interesting times, and a barn-burner of an election. Stay tuned. It will be the best thing on TV this year. Be seeing you.

Campaign 2011: A Nation of Beer and Whine

Politics for Joe 21

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For: Lake Superior News

Nation of beer, nation of whine ... I hold in my hand a letter ... The love that dares not speak its name

It's become so much a part of the human nature that we expose to polling and Man on the Street interviews that we don't even question it anymore. TV screens and sidebar stories have been plump with faces moaning on about how this election is expensive and unnecessary. Let me express a sentiment that will forevermore guarantee that I will never, ever stand for public office: these people are idiots and should be ignored.

Let's deal with the cost first. Rabble.ca is guesstimating $300 million and I'm fine with using that number, nor would I quibble with any other number +/- $50 million. Well, the ad campaign for the government's Economic Action Plan came in at $26 million and do tell me in detail how those ads made your life any better? Not the program, the ads. Learning is my life.

So there's roughly 10% of the cost of the entire election, during which ideas will be discussed which are all about making your life better. It's all Vote for Pedro really, the candidate for school president in 'Napoleon Dynamite.' "If you vote for me, all your wildest dreams will come true." Works for me, and it would work for you too.

Besides which, an election is one of the best public employment projects ever invented. Much like the New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt, many are hired and are found jobs to perform. Seniors, students, welfare recipients, the disabled all have an equal shot at making $150 or so as poll clerks and such, more in the District Returning Officer's temporary office. That may not sound like much to you, but it's a lot to some. Other money is spent on national or local businesses. Unemployment numbers always show a little dip as the result. It's not an unnecessary cost, it's a temporary economic boost. And don't think local TV affiliates aren't glad for the revenue either. I've covered television long enough to know that they are not the cash cows of old.

So why on Earth do complain about elections? It's not like they are restful holidays for the candidates. I'm always amazed more aren't carted off the battlefield by emotionally shattered student volunteers bearing the corpse on a litter improvised out of lawn signs.

There fallen O'Riley laid to rest

His body lain on the shield of red

Not 24 hours before Big Lou

Crashed upon his own stretcher of blue

But I digress.

The long and the short of it is that if the cost supports any kind of reasonable debate on the nation's future it is money spent most effectively.

It's all started with a bang. Gilles Duceppe raising a letter signed by Stephen Harper in agreement with a Bloq/Tory/NDP coalition does slather a fresh coat of yellow mistrust on the Prime Minister. I will be very, very interested to see the first polls on the credibility of the leaders. Just as the Republicans in the U.S. eventually had to turn on Nixon to save themselves, unless this election election momentum truly turns, Harper can start tuning up his piano playing for next winter's cruise season. He'll have time (and music) on his hands.

A coalition, or the potential for one, is the lead headline and I suspect it will remain a lead headline throughout the campaign. Layton is positively licking at the idea like it was an ice cream cone, as well he should. Ignatieff's response is - I think - wrong. He is delivering the standard line of, We're in it to win it baby. A coalition is the Liberal love that dares not speak its name. But I think a more reflective answer might have been in order. At least Ignatieff did say that he liked working with people. That is always a good line to put in the resume.

More to come, undoubtedly...

Election 2011: Puttin' on the Writs

Puttin' on the Writs:

Politics for Joe 20

For: Lake Superior News

By: Hubert O'Hearn

I've said in many places that in my heart I've always been a sportswriter who has spent a career moonlighting in the arts, literature and politics. Well, it's good for a man to have hobbies.

Sports comes in handy in all those other fields. When it comes to physical duress and obsession with a goal brought to the breaking point, I'd rather watch a good football game than read 'Moby Dick' any day. And I'm not ashamed to admit it either. Evidently.

The metaphors work so nicely too for politics. Winners. Losers. Power. Struggle. Battle. Strategy. Choosing the geographic and demographic targets is not unlike deciding between 4-4-2 and 4-1-3-2 going into a Champions League draw. And what is a rally but a slightly more polite version of the ritual burning of the opposition's jersey the night before the Big College Game?

Plus the boys themselves who run for office have a substantial jockocracy majority. As much of a loner as Pierre Trudeau was, he was also a borderline extreme adventurer. John Turner of course should be bronzed as a trophy given to jockocracy Hall of Fame inductees. I think he'd rather enjoy that, which is why of course he'd be the perfect model. One also suspects that Jean Chretien was probably a 12 handicap who played to a 6 and cleaned out a few wallets in his day. But in general, our prime Ministers and near-misses have been a pretty fit crew and enjoy the pleasure of being able to snap up hockey tickets any damn night they please.

Mind you, you don't want to push your membership in the jockocracy very hard. Stockwell Day on a jet-ski anyone? That was Canada's 'Dukakis in a tank' moment to shine dimly.

One wonders if the clear public chill towards both Harper and Ignatieff is somehow based on the inability to imagine either one of them playing anything. Both of them look fit enough, Harper in an Urban Dad sort of way, but diving for a touch football pass? Naw, can't see it. I could possibly see Harper bowling, couldn't you? Then again my thoughts of Harper are coloured by comparisons with Richard Nixon and Nixon loved that White House bowling alley.

Ignatieff would be a snooker player. Anyone who spends much time in either academia or Britain ends up with chalk on their fingers, and when you put the two together to do otherwise would be akin to being from Indiana and not following basketball. But snooker isn't a sport either. Anything that you can play while smoking, drinking and telling rude stories really doesn't count as a sport.

2011 Leader's Debate ... I like Ignatieff's black cowboy hat

Like poker. I keep coming back to poker as the metaphor for this election that apparently will be called tomorrow. Here are the hands, the hole cards as I see them:

Harper: KQ off-suit

Ignatieff: QJ suited

Layton: 10-7 off-suit

Duceppe: J-6 fold,

Gray: 7-2 off-suit, folds

Harper deals, so he has the advantage of the button – able to see and address whatever the others throw at him. Ignatieff sits in the Big Blind, Layton in the Small Blind position.

Harper narrowly has the better hand than Ignatieff, who has a very good hand but not the kind of apparent strength that will make him confident in shoving his chips. He will likely just check his turn, playing cautiously in the hopes that the flop – whatever news events that transpire in the early campaign – will favour his hand. That is the Liberal strategy I expect.

Harper and Ignatieff both hold Queens. Any Queen on the flop, say some poor economic news, seems to aid Ignatieff but actually strengthens Harper. Anything weird on unemployment figures or the TSX having a fainting spell will assist his message on strong economic stewardship. Ignatieff's best hopes are the flush, straight or Jacks.

Gilles Duceppe held one of the other Jacks however. That is Quebec. Should Ignatieff and the Liberals go over better in Quebec, say 35 seats, the government likely is theirs. But there are only two Jacks left in the deck, so that is only an 8% or so chance. He needs a series of things to go very right to form a Liberal government.

As for Jack Layton and the NDP, I've dealt him Canadian poker champion Danny Negreanu's favourite hand. You can win big pots with it, as Negreanu has in the past, but to do so requires wisdom and aggression. The hand is partially hurt by Elizabeth Gray having held a 7, but a pair of 7s wasn't going to win a whole lot anyway. I say Layton raises this hand pre-flop, comes out hot and aggressive, forcing both Harpera nd Ignatieff to call. In the case of the campaign, if Layton plays this the way I think he should and will, he will very much try to set the agenda and I suspect it will be the sleaze factor of the Tories.

Like Ignatieff's hand, Layton needs a lot of things to go right. The equivalent of hitting the other two 7s on the flop would be one more Conservative scandal along with some massive Liberal campaign flub. Both are capable of doing just that.

I may re-visit this in a week or two, after the flop as it were.

In the meantime, enjoy your politics served on a Writs cracker.

Be seeing you.

Canadian Election: The wolverine stalks the porcupine

Politics for Joe 19

For: Lake Superior News

By: Hubert O'Hearn

We will fight the government on the economy and we will win -

Michael Ignatieff, March 23 2011

The wolverine knows to strike when the porcupine shows its belly -

Ominous saying by the author, about 15 seconds ago

At the outset, we need to make a few things clear amongst ourselves. Churchill described politics as a game; the only game suitable for adults to play. But if it is a game, it is the only one where the play-by-play commentators can affect the outcome. Foster Hewitt never threw a shoe down from the Maple Leaf Gardens' broadcast gondola, beaning Rocket Richard as he crossed the blueline.

Would have been a hell of a sight, mind you.

But any chucklehead with access to a microphone, camera or keyboard theoretically can weigh in with his or her opinions and possibly change a vote or two. This of course breaks every code of ethical objectivity by which every honourable journalist is bound. And as soon as I meet one, I'll be sure to express the nation's grateful thanks.

So long as we're going to be spending these quiet and reflective/screaming from the parapet moments over the next several weeks, you may as well know exactly where I'm coming from in analyzing this election.

1. I believe that Stephen Harper is Canada's Richard Nixon, a man wrapped up in an obsessive need to not only win, not only push his platform through, but to do so by any means necessary. Those means have demonstrably included lies, secrecy, innuendo and outright personal attack. He is a vermin that demands extermination.
2. The various proved allegations against Harper and the Conservatives vis a vis contempt of Parliament do matter and should matter to the country's voters. Like it or not, but parliamentary democracy is the system we have, the system by which we have prospered as a nation, and anything that blocks the abilities of individual Members to properly perform their duties can only weaken the ability of the majority of the public to voice its desires.
3. You may as well know my call for the outcome, as we sit here on March 24^th with the writ to come at some point in the next week. I believe we will have a situation highly similar to 1985 in Ontario: a Conservative plurality replaced by a Liberal-NDP coalition; either formal or informal. The outcome will be roughly:
   1. Conservatives 110
   2. Liberals 105
   3. Bloq Quebecois 58
   4. NDP 45

4. My desire is for a formal Liberal-NDP coalition. The Liberals have no platform, no overriding theme as to where to take the country. I suspect they will slap something together over beers at the Chateau Laurier in the next week. The NDP has always been very good on themes, narratives and policies. They have thousands of graduate liberal arts students disguised as monkeys doing nothing but hammer out policy papers on suitable Macs 24 hours a day.
5. And none of the parties can screw up the economy all that badly.

The most interesting part of the Phony Campaign thus far has been the Ipsos Reid poll released Sunday. When asked what the most important issue was in the coming election here were the headline results:

Honest, Open and Trustworthy Government – 63%

Continuing Economic Recovery – 37%

Those are not happy fun time numbers for the government. Even allowing that the poll was taken while news of paid escorts receiving kickback money was turning every paper in the country into Page Three of 'The Sun' and every newscast into TMZ on the Rideau, a nearly 2/1 lead is a lot bigger than any individual news story. Even allowing for my personal prejudices, I can't imagine any commentator not seeing a government in a huge potential mess. One does recall that when Brian Mulroney tagged in Kim Campbell only for the Progressive Conservatives' caucus room to be the same size as a '57 Thunderbird, a two-seater, the economy was clunky but not horrible while there had been a cha-cha line forming of Tories involved in sundry and occasionally sultry scandals. In the old days, Tories took in strippers as entertainment while on foreign trips. Now they take escorts on as business partners. The old boys were sleazy, but smarter.

But that butchering was done by Jean Chretien, who ultimately will be seen as the Quebecois Mackenzie King. Or better yet, Chretien was like the America's Cup captain Dennis Conner who could literally see the wind and steer his ship to the front of it. Ignatieff, in contrast, is neither wind-seer nor rainmaker.

W.L. Mackenzie King - a  man who knew how to
sail political winds

Ah yes, the Rainmaker.

Keith Davey passed away a few months ago and he was the campaign strategist who did the near-impossible in 1972-74 when the Liberals were staggering along, listless and unloved. He looked at Pierre Trudeau and metaphorically saw Star Trek's Spock. Davey kept the Vulcan half as hidden as possible and brought out the human side of the imperially aloof Trudeau.

At its gut, game level that is where the election will be won. Who in these three parties has the guts and instinct to put together the narrative that will seize the country? This thing is wide-open dear friends – I can even create you a scenario where Jack Layton wakes up in 2011 the way Bob Rae did in Ontario in 1990 and realizes, “Holy s**t, I won?”

This is a pull up the chair and watch election. God knows I'm hoping to enjoy it.

Be seeing you.

Jay Onrait and Dan O'Toole: The Sports Guys - Part two!

Inside Television 546

Publication date: 3-25-11

By: Hubert O'Hearn

Our interview with SportsCentre hosts Jay Onrait and Dan O'Toole continues...

Jay and Dan ... the early years

How did the Legend of Producer Tim get started? What's he like: the man behind the Question Mark?

Jay Onrait: Dan gets credit for that one. He started talking about Tim during the show and it stuck. Tim is notoriously camera shy and so he will never be seen on television and that’s the way he wants it. Dan and Tim get into a lot of arguments about the show which are tremendously entertaining and fun for me. I actually started with Tim at TSN as a writer back in 1996… we were interns together… 15 years later we’re still basically interns but paid slightly more. Tim is our voice of reason and he basically keeps us from getting fired which we appreciate.

Dan O'Toole: You had to ask about Producer Tim didn't ya. Tim is our full time producer and is slowly trimming years off my life. If I say its sunny out, Tim would say there was partial cloud cover. We do not agree on much which probably helps the show as it gets us see both sides of an argument. Tim's main job is acting as our better judgment filter. If we write or say something a little out there, Tim will rein us in. We don't always agree, but when you are driving home and thinking about it, you usually end up agreeing we were best not saying what we really wanted to say. As for talking about Tim on the show, it just began happening. We had no set plan, he just began coming up in conversation on air, and we didn't get in trouble for it plus it kind of annoyed Tim, so we just continued doing it. Our bosses just made us promise that he would never be seen on camera, which he never will. Does he exist or is he really the Tyler Durden (Fight Club imaginary person) of our minds. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure myself.

How much of the comedy (e.g. the presentation of a Bob McKenzie poster) is scripted and how much just sheer instant inspiration?

Jay Onrait: It’s about half and half I think on a regular night. We write the ‘bits’ when we appear on-camera but most of the stuff we say over the hilites is ad-libbed. I think it’s a good combination. You don’t want to plan it too much but at the same time you don’t want to go completely off-script or it could be chaos.

Dan O'Toole: The thing that really works with our show, and that makes it fun, is the ad libbing we do. We make the same comments you and your buddies would make while sitting on the couch watching the highlights, its just we have mic's on... and are on TV.... wearing suits. Sports is a distraction for people, its entertainment. We know when to be serious and we know when to have fun. You hear from the odd person that says they want their sports without all the clowning around. We are sure to put those people in touch with Tim and they usually become best friends.

Television vs. the Internet. What can SportsCentre or TSN do that the Internet can't?

Jay Onrait: I think it’s at the point now where you have to have a connection to the personalities hosting the show. In fact, it’s probably always been like that… because even pre-internet you didn’t have to watch one specific show to get your sports hilites. I think we have done a pretty good job of creating a show that is both informative and entertaining. We realize the internet exists and that you don’t have to watch our show to get the hilites. Hopefully our show is entertaining enough that you can get all your hilites and maybe even be entertained along the way and possibly appalled.

Dan O'Toole: I am all for the internet but I don't get watching TV on it. If I am watching a show, I want it to be on a screen that is larger than an encyclopedia. (For those unsure, an encyclopedia was the original internet) The web brings you instant information. TV makes that information look pretty. 

Have you ever had to cut anything for the 3AM repeat because maybe a joke crossed the edge?

Jay Onrait: Actually one night I said the word “douchebag” to describe Jon Gosselin and the next day CTV sent out a memo to all its employees pointing out that ‘douchebag” was not an acceptable word to say on TV. I was pretty proud that day.

Dan O'Toole: This all goes back to Producer Tim and his 'voice of reason'. There have been to many instances to mention in which we say our goodbyes and Tim says in our ear "let's do that again". Our argument usually is that they say the same type of thing on late night TV, and he reminds us that our show airs in the morning. Blast that Tim and his voice of reason.

And finally...what's your favourite moment on SportsCentre?

Jay Onrait: The clip that comes to mind recently is “ANOTHER GAME FOR MILOS” … Milos Raonic was such a good sport to say it and of course we will play that clip until everyone gets sick of it. Which will be never.

I agree. Another Game for Milos will live forever! Be seeing you.

Harper/Nixon and The Gut Shot Straight Election

Politics for Joe 18

By: Hubert O'Hearn

For: Lake Superior News

Harper/Nixon and The Gut Shot Straight Election ...

You can positively hear the sounds from 800 miles away: glasses clinked in delight at the National Press Gallery, Shop-Vacs and spray cans swooshing and spritzing through campaign buses made minty-fresh and clean, while somewhere in the Gatineau Hills a Prime Minister looks out at the melting snow and realizes the grey skies and sopping mess are an ugly metaphor for the Scheherazade dream story of a Majority government. He turns to the piano, sits and begins to play one of the John Lennon songs that is definitely not on the playlist for Conservative fundraisers in North Battleford. He sings:

"God is a concept

By which we measure our pain"

Alright, maybe not. But it is fun to imagine sometimes. As regular readers of this space know, my call to a gut shot straight is that the next Canadian Federal Election was not going to be fought on the economy. It simply is not a subject for much debate between or among the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP. Canadians look at the rest of the world shrieking and spinning like amateur kayakers who made the Wrong Turn, look back at ourselves and think, "Things could be worse."

The big economic guns will stay locked away. The deficit is not wildly out-of-control, inflation is moderate and employment numbers are running under a 30-year average (7.8% current, 8.53% historic).

This is why I refer to this election - coming soon to a church basement near you! - as a gut shot straight. It will be won by putting together random pieces into a larger whole that will ultimately win the pot.

Speaking of pot, that was just about the only thing missing from the Boy Howdy! list of scandals that pretty much ended Stephen Harper's government this week. The story of Bruce Carson, former aide to Harper now standing accused of illegal lobbying has a list of elements that would get a would-be novelist kicked out on the streets. Let's run through them together, shall we?

Former top policy aide to Prime Minister

22 year old escort model

20% of Aboriginal water project to be paid to said model

Model is policy aide's fiancee and business partner

Possibly meetings between former aide and Prime Minister

If it was a series, it could run for years. As it is, it stands as the perfect political scandal in that it coalesces all the unsettling suspicions Canadians have had against the Harper Conservatives; suspicions that have denied them that most-desired majority government.

I mentioned to the editor of a major Canadian news outlet just last week that Harper was starting to remind me of Nixon (Richard, not former Ontario Treasurer Bob). One starts with the obsessive secrecy and sudden firings (Helen Guergis), along with the clear contempt for independent review and legislative procedure (the Bev Oda matter). Stylistically too, every time Harper puts on the sweater or sits down at the piano - Nixon was quite a good player too - every time he tries to look relaxed and guy-ish, he comes off more and more awkward. Like Darth Vader wearing a Kiss the Cook apron.

The Harpers relax at home

The Bruce Carson ring-a-ding-ding scandal (and Carson is old enough to remember what ring-a-ding-ding stood for...he can explain it to his fiancee) puts focus on the sleaze factor. The election, will, I think not be fought totally on Truth & Openness. All parties promise that and no sentient voter ever believes them. But, here's the nut. Because the Harper government has been so rfevealed to be dishonest and manipulative in public discourse and behaviour, they lose the validity of government itself. Put simply: Who's going to believe them? If for argument's sake Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announces in Wednesday's budget that growth was going to be 4% for the coming year, unemployment to slide to 6% and growth in the energy sector would account for much of a $10 billion trimming of the deficit ... would you believe a word of it?

That's Harper's bet. He doesn't want to push his chips in, but he's gambling that he can sell strength and play with enough attitude (in this case the attack ad campaign) that he can fold his opponents. But it's now or never for him. One economic wobble and whatever argument he has left for his government is gone.

I think the Liberals and NDP will call the bet. They should. Canada does not need a Nixon. It is more than a little worrisome that the best offer the Liberals have put out to Canada is, 'We'll build you hockey rinks!' And this from a party that has supposedly been tut-tutting the government over its penchant for slathering Conservative Party signwork over every public works project in Canada.

There is a very, very good chance for the NDP here. The electorate's fear of the NDP has always been, 'Can they manage the economy?' If the economy is off the table - if the electorate is comfortable that none of the parties can bugger that up too badly - then that fear too is off the table.

We'll be following this closely. Be prepared for frequent updates. Possibly short, possibly wrong. But definitely something to watch during commercial breaks of the NCAAs.

Be seeing you.