Stephan Dion was tricked again - this time by his successor

I'm not really surprised in the media frenzy about the potential Coalition of Liberal-NDP-BQ to overthrow the Conservative government.

Canadians are seriously spit in this. However, lots of people from either side are equally puzzled by why the coalition is now, and why it was triggered by the budget. Particularly “why the seemingly innocent suspend of political party funding for 2 to 3 years”?

Well, I've written before about the Nov, 04th, 2008 election that Conservative triggered – an early election because they knew Canadian economy is going down, and did not want to risk being forced into election at the bottom of a recession. They were lucky and got some improvement in seating in parliament.

Well, maybe not that lucky.

Because they did not win a majority, an election at the worst of a recession is still (if not even more) a sure-call (a possibility is an understatement).

As expected, they had another minority - which means the oppositions can trigger another election as they want, and do it again in a year is not something oppositions really worry too much (about being blamed for triggering another election). So Tories are not in any position better than before the Nov 4th election, although they gained some seats. And with Stephan Dion already resigned, the next Liberal leader is likely harder to beat. Tories want (need) to avoid a 09 election as much as possible.

So, Tories thought about this plan: let's suspend political party funding in the name of cutting cost to fight recession for 2 years. Chances are by then, the recession is over, and since no funding means no campaign, and no election, Tories will be safe during the recession. Since it's in the name of recession, and election was just over 2 month ago, Tories bet oppositions will not bring it to another election due to this measure alone.

"How smart are we?" Tories must have praised themselves for presenting 2 options to opposition – either one of them seems a killer.

Well, it may be a “killer-either-way” if this was the Canadian politics before Michael Ignatieff.

No one will be happy to be presented 2 options they don’t like.  And oppositions really got upset. It's not really a good idea to trigger another election, but it's really not an option for them to give up the possibility to go into poll in the worst of this recession to take advantages of it.

So again poor Mr. Dion, who was the only non-interim Liberal leader that has never became a Prime Minister was a perfect figure for thwart Tories' plan. Mr. Dion is so eager to be PM he's willing to take any chance (well, he probably will never be PM by election anyways). So Mr. Dion accepted a proposal by someone who's running to replace him - go with a coalition proposal. This way they can avoid the measure of reduce funding for 2 years without going to the poll right-a-way.

This is really the smart move – you give me 2 options to choose from, I’ll jump out of the box and reply with a 3^rd way.  Now the table is turned (somewhat), Tory is the one being presented 2 undesirable options: give up the power now, or go to a poll in the worst of recession a year or two later.

IF this is a big “if”, the coalition is really signed, Tory will not have enough seats to just trigger an election at any time they want, so their best bet will be stay in power for now, rather than hope they can trigger an election at best time.

Basically, Tories “smart” little plan of freeze party funding for 2 years united 3 oppositions, and made themselves vulnerable to being overthrown.

However, this also created first coup of Canadian parliamentary history.  Which is only a good thing for an opposition party has no chance of being in power in any other ways.  This means, it’s bad for Liberal.

Well, for whoever’s sake, we have dear Mr. Dion.  As a lame duck Liberal leader, he has nothing to loose in such a coup.  And if it works out, great, if it doesn’t, god forbid, Mr. Dion will not return to Canadian politics anyways (he has no chance of return).  So it’s pretty much a “screw you or screw me, what I care” type of situation, where Mr. Dion has nothing to loose, he’ll not loose.

OK, Tory lost the game, Mr. Dion did not loose, but who is the winner?  Well follow the story, you will see on Dec 10 Mr. Ignatieff become the Liberal leader without a vote.

If you remember, Mr. Ignatieff lost to Mr. Dion during his first Liberal leadership bid.  One reason he did not win is Mr. Ignatieff does not have strong loyal senior party official’s support.  He spent most of his life in UK and US (he only returned to Canada 2005/2006 after decades of working abroad).

So if he goes back to the poll, chances are he may lost to someone has deeper political connection within Liberal party, or someone is weak that can be accepted by all fractions of Liberal Party like Mr. Dion who is chosen because everyone knows he won’t last long, so everyone has a chance to bid for the leadership soon. (Yeah, less than 2 years is still too short compare to most people expected).

Then here, we have a parliament prorogued, a 2 month window for the Liberal party to “put themselves together” a long enough time for Liberal to “unit around a new leader” but short enough for a vote to be “impractical”.  So the “natural” solution is succession plan, instead of Party wide vote.

Voila. We have Mr. Ignatieff as Liberal leader without a vote.

Mr. Ignatieff is the only winner of this crisis, with comment like “I’ll not look in to coalition…”

NDP and Bloc Québécois still chanting “coalition, coalition”.  Painting a weak image of themselves.

The 2009 budget will pass (maybe some changes demanded by Liberal in trade for support), Mr. Ignatieff will not want to be the Prime Minister of 2009, either by election or coalition.  Who wants to get the blame for the worst of the economy?  Only Mr. Jack Layton who has no chance of being elected PM will try to grab power at the worst of the economy.

Mr. Ignatieff will push Tory in to more deficit, so that during next election, he can easily attack Tory for being in the red.

And like it or not, Mr. Harper has no chance in next election.  Mr. Ignatieff is the single more competent politician in Canada today, he can easily win a game against 3, any 3.  Mr. Dion, so long, good luck, you picked Mr. Ignatieff to be your deputy and ensured your own doom.  It may not be a bad thing for Canadian though.  

What if media conspirate with President in power?

The ultimate shame for any media is pandering to the ones in power.

I would say the media favor the underdog is one of the key strength of the American system.
Normally, during an election, the opposition party should get more favorable coverage to counter the benefit of the incumbent’s power.

The problem starts when Mr. Obama has showed unstoppable momentum during primary, yet, media failed to switch gear. Instead most media starting to pose like “see, we are genius we knew he will win, and we will make history.” And most of them did. That’s a problem, media are the most powerful group of people in a democratic culture, and when the media forget “monitor the people in power”, instead enjoys “making the difference”, that’s dangerous.

I’m glad to see MarketWatch starting to re-think media’s behavior during primary and election, and that’s the hope of America. As Mr. Obama elected, he is going to be the most powerful person in the world. Close scrutiny of him (as the most powerful person) is the only protection democracy gives the people. If most of the media do not realize this like John did (if they keep singing “glory to the almighty king” song), America is doomed, because its media in essence give the person in power un-monitored authority.

Media’s mission is not to tell people who is angel and who is evil. Media’s mission should be closely watch the politician and tell people what they do and facts about them and let people decide who's angel who's evil. (unless you don't trust people, which is anti-democracy, or your just say whatever people like to hear which is pure popularism).

During primary and election, we saw media went out of their way (collectively, not necessary each individual) to cover Mr. Obama for his shortcomings. It’s this part, not the fact that too many media sing the glory song of Mr. Obama bothered me most. When it's clear that Mr. Obama is no longer the underdog, media still ignore and help covering his mistakes, makes me wonder will these same media be capable of monitoring the most powerful person in the world months later, or they will simple pandering to the powerful and become his tool in controlling the nation dare I say like in Venezuela?

I admit I've never been a fan of Mr. Obama – a person too hard to be criticized because he’s DONE nearly nothing significant (yet). While he’s super talented in preaching, talk is always much too easy compare to walk the walk. If you do something, chances are you will be criticized – just as Mr. Obama criticized Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain. So the best way of not being criticized is do nothing, Mr. Obama is the only candidate smart enough to do so, why the media collectively chose to be Mr. Obama’s aid in willingly not scrutinize him. Any fumble his opponent made, became big story, any fumble Mr. Obama made became compliment– “his human after all” – as if forgiving Mr. Obama (but not his opponents) is a gracious deed American should adopt.

When that was a mere unfair before Mr. Obama became President of US. It’s super dangerous after he assumes power. If the media continue to help President Obama cover (or demise) his fumble, or mistake, it’s the nation who will suffer the most.

God bless America, hopefully the media will soon wake up like John did. Kudu to John, although I wasn’t very found of his coverage of Mr. Obama during election, being brave and bright enough to re-consider media’s frenzy about Mr. Obama is what American media really need now and John’s leading the way.