If Elizabeth May still mattered ...

... the overwhelming response to this story in the MSM and the alt-media, would be howling cries of hypocrisy based on this ...



But to be fair, it's not that May is entirely irrelevant. Clearly people voted for her and her party in the last election. It's just that her inexplicable antics, propensity for internal scraps and unsubstantiated claims have alienated many of those voters as well as many respected GPC stalwarts.

On that basis, the need to hold her to the same standard of seriousness and consistency as the other leaders is just not there. And in politics, that's as brutal a condemnation as you're likely to get.

Only 300 ridings left to go ...

Taking a cue from others, this corner of the internet has for some time observed a policy of not commenting on the musings of the leader of the Green Party, nee Liberal Party spokes-thingy.

The point having already been made, and nothing having changed, what’s left to say? But an article in the Owen Sound Sun Times does change things. For the worse ...

Coming off of this week's election in BC which saw Green support tumble 37% from their electoral high, Elizabeth May is now suggesting she’s looking at running in “seven or eight” ridings across the country.

For those keeping score at home, since re-entering electoral politics in 2006, May has now mused about running in no fewer than EIGHT federal ridings:

Central Nova: here

Cape Breton-Canso: “I’d love to be the Member of Parliament for Cape Breton--Canso. That's where my family home is.” – CTV Question Period, January 7, 2007

London North Centre: “I want to be the best MP London-North-Centre has ever had, quite honestly, I want to work really hard for the riding." - London Free Press, October 26, 2006

Sydney-Victoria: "One morning I wake up and think for sure I’m going to run in Cape Breton-Canso . . . Then I think maybe I should run in Sydney-Victoria by the end of the day.” – Halifax Chronicle Herald, February 21, 2007

Ottawa West—Nepean: "I love the idea of running against one of the cabinet ministers of this (Conservative) government. I live not that far away from where (Environment Minister) John Baird's riding is in Ottawa.” - Halifax Chronicle-Herald, January 18, 2007

New Westminster—Coquitlam: “Green Leader Elizabeth May says she would consider running for a seat in a soon-to-be-vacant riding out west but will not make up her mind until a by- election is called.” – Toronto Star, May 11, 2009

Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley: “It depends on when and if a byelection is called because if there is a general election first, then there is no byelection opportunities. If a byelection opportunity presented itself, I’d be very interested.” – On running in Bill Casey’s former riding, CBC "Politics with Don Newman", April 28, 2009

And now, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound

Honourably in the last three years, May has managed to eke out a shrinking share of the political space talking about the need for politicians to be straight with people. So it’s more than a bit revolting to find her ending her political comeback by packing-up her carpet bags after making this solemn promise to the people of "her riding" ...

May’s strategic voting ploy backfires

So civil war has broken out within the Green Party over Elizabeth May’s attempt to turn her party into an official branch plant of supporters for the Dion Liberals in the final days of the 2008 election.

In the Globe, David Chernushenko, Green Party stalwart and second place finisher to May in the 2006 leadership race has blasted May for telling potential Green voters to vote Liberal instead.

Every candidate deserves to be fairly considered for a vote, and I don't believe in strategic voting and I don't believe that any Green candidate, volunteer or donor should be sold out," Mr. Chernushenko said in a phone interview yesterday.

Asked if that is what he believes Ms. May has done, his answer was yes.

"If you are encouraging people to run and then telling the voter to go, however they feel, and not vote for your party, then, that's not full support for your candidate is it?" he asked.

Chernushenko is absolutely right. Every person who decides to support a party, give money to it, and run as candidates, deserve a leader of that party who fights for every vote and every seat. That’s how our system works.

What May has chosen to do by meeting with Liberal strategists and boosting the Liberal Party is in a word dishonest to voters and to those who joined the Green Party in good faith. In the long run, it breeds precisely the kind of cynicism Greens said they wanted to change.

The good news is, she has been caught out on it.

Peter MacKay frets loss to NDP’s Lorefice

The last week is always the real test of a campaign. All-candidates debates are ancient history, the last piece of literature is out the door, and canvassing is ramping down so that the only real question left is whether or not you have the marks so that if everything goes right, you can win.

In Central Nova, Peter MacKay’s campaign manager has asked himself that question and answered “No. No we don’t” which is why he put out a panicked letter to mobilize supporters – which has now landed in the hands of the media.

The defence minister’s manager writes:

“Despite the national attention, it is my firm conviction (and has been since the Liberals chose not to run a candidate), that the Green Party and Elizabeth may pose no serious threat to Peter. The threat comes from the NDP…”

New Democrat Louise Lorefice is poised to be a giant killer and MacKay knows it.

If this surprises some, including the Ottawa/Toronto media, it shouldn’t. There is the entire layer of provincial politics at play in this riding. The Nova Scotia NDP have a very real stake in ensuring that Central Nova doesn’t stay Conservative. They have a real stake in ensuring that MacKay can’t be a factor in the next provincial election.

In Nova Scotia, the NDP are the official opposition in a minority government. Darrell Dexter, the popular NDP leader is expected to be premier following the next election. But in order to do this, he needs to win in rural ridings like those inside MacKay’s federal seat. That’s why they are putting resources into the fight.

The NDP have a better shot at Central Nova. All they need is less than 40% of the now homeless Liberal vote to come to Lorefice and MacKay will be back to crouching in pasture cuddling his neighbour’s dog full-time! At best, the ill-conceived deal to have Liberals not run against May in Central Nova was only worth only 26% of the vote (coincidentally about the same that May eked out in the London North Centre by-election).

That’s why Dexter’s phone-canvassers and organizers are on the ground to ensure the win and why MacKay’s campaign manager is looking a bit ashen today.

Liberal environment expert rejects carbon tax

Stephane Dion’s efforts to sell his carbon tax are under threat by revelations that advice Liberals obtained from an environmental expert strongly advised the party against the carbon tax Liberals are calling for today.

With a new poll showing widespread public scepticism about Dion’s marquee plan to pass a $40 a tonne carbon tax along to ordinary consumers, his sales pitch is being undermined by a report commissioned by the party which outright rejects carbon tax as a solution to climate change.

Described as “a name to watch in Liberal politics,” Désirée McGraw advised the Liberal Party against a carbon tax as chair of the Environment and Sustainable Development Taskforce commissioned by the party’s renewal process in 2006.

An environmentalist and lecturer on sustainable development, McGraw concludes on page 69 of her report that a carbon tax wouldn’t be necessary to meet Canada’s global GHG targets, preferring a cap and trade system like NDP leader Jack Layton is calling for instead.

In the report, McGraw says she came to this conclusion in part because for a carbon tax to be at all viable it would have to be “high enough to … ensure emission reductions.” To that point, a report by economist Marc Jaccard for the David Suzuki Foundation concluded that even at a $100 a tonne - $60 more than the Green Shift plan - a carbon tax still wouldn’t be high enough to meet Canada’s Kyoto commitment by 2020 – eight years after the Kyoto deadline.

Based on this analysis, at $40 a tonne, Dion's carbon tax is just not high enough to ensure critical and long overdue emissions reductions (which is why Dion's plan has no emissions reductions targets at all). It won't get us to the Kyoto targets, and won't get us to 80% below 1990 level by 2050 which scientists agree is necessary to prevent a climate catastrophe.

Instead of a carbon tax, the McGraw report says “Following extensive and intensive input from Taskforce contributors, this report opts for [a cap and trade] approach.”

Among the Taskforce contributors McGraw credits in helping her make her conclusion for cap and trade and against a carbon tax are the the late former Liberal environment minister Charles Caccia and then-Sierra Club head Elizabeth May.

Eight months ago, McGraw, who backed Dion for leader, was being touted as a potential candidate, saying the birth of her son “has deepened her dream since girlhood of becoming an MP.” And eight months ago, Stephane Dion was still dead set against a carbon tax.

Today, neither of those things are true.

Today, the Liberals find themselves in the inconvenient circumstance of having comissioned and accepted expert environmental advice in 2006, which is the same expert environmental advice which says Dion’s “Green Shift” won’t get the job done and Jack Layton’s plan will.

The one where Paul Wells says what we are all thinking

Sometimes it happens. And this is one of those times.

Paul Wells has said what we've all been thinking -- this time dismissing Elizabeth May's role as Stephane Dion's "auxiliary backup party leader".

With honesty simultaneously refreshing and exclamation-mark-rich, the Inkless one intones: "THE GREEN PARTY OF CANADA HAS NO SEATS IN PARLIAMENT!!! ... It feels unaccountably more rewarding to pay attention to people with power than to pay attention to people without power."

The Green Party, it will be recalled, has been available for comment since 1982. And yet it has historically merited barely a paragraph of press outside elections. So really, why all the attention now, pollsters, journos and pundits alike?

Is it because suddenly they have a leader whose stated raison d'etre is to have another party form a government, and another party leader become Prime Minister? Is it because Greens are inexplicably seeking common cause with the Liberal Party, and Liberals are doing the same for May - punctuated by a fatuous comparison to Barack Obama?

Treating May as an objective political actor, particularly after her most recent role, is the same as believing "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were interested in truth.

Wells puts it more bluntly, suggesting the unconvinced ask themselves if it's "really fair for the Liberal leader, who thinks the Liberal leader must at all costs be prime minister, to be joined onstage by a special auxiliary backup party leader who also thinks the Liberal leader must at all costs be prime minister."

For his part, Wells says "NO" (exclamation marks redacted).

NDP calls for "a new coalition" to take on Harper

Stephane Dion's listless capitulation to grant the Conservatives the means to extend the Afghanistan mission for another two years has, as Chantal Hebert notes today, once and for all cast today's Liberals as mere bit players in Stephen Harper's agenda and surrendered whatever progressive credentials they once clung to:

"Harper may be the main beneficiary of Dion's decision but Jack Layton comes a close second. For as long as he has been NDP leader, he has looked for a defining issue to set himself apart from the Liberals. This week's Afghan developments will go some way to insulate NDP support from Liberal attempts to rally progressive voters against the Conservatives in the next election."

Sensing the disappointment of grassroots Liberals, the NDP is now setting out to build.

In an open letter posted to their website, party president Anne McGrath has extended the party's hand to build "a new political coalition" of New Democrats and Liberal supporters who remain opposed to Stephen Harper's agenda:

"I’m making an extraordinary appeal to all New Democrat supporters to invite their Liberal friends to join our party right now -- the only national party not in favour of two more years of war and the only national party standing up to Stephen Harper’s agenda.

Just like we did nearly 50 years ago when we formed the NDP, it’s time to build a new political coalition in Canada -- a coalition that will stand up to Stephen Harper and put forward a vision of prosperity, fairness and peace in the world."

It wasn't long ago that Dion was using the language of "coalition" to describe his accord with Elizabeth May and the rump of the Progressive Canadian party. The irony now of course, is that building a coalition around the Liberal Party to defeat Harper is tantamount to building a coalition around McDonalds to defeat juvenile obesity.

May’s loose cannon is aimed at Dion’s judgment

As one of the most successful NDP premiers, Roy Romanow knows how to win and how to govern. One of his favourite political axioms is “when you are explaining, you are losing.” (H/T to Buckdog)

In other words, when you are still fixing the finer points of yesterday’s screw-up, you can't talk about what you need to today.
By that measure, Elizabeth May isn’t winning today.

Her foolish drivel equating Canadian soldiers to “Christian Crusaders” has again demonstrated her rhetorical recklessness and sent supporters and candidates fleeing.

But all eyes are now fixed on Stéphane Dion and his decision to bring May onto the Liberal family in the first place. The scheme was cynically designed to give the weakened Red Team an additional piece of ammunition blasting outwards at the NDP. Instead, since March, May’s cannon has been rolling loose inside the Liberal camp and is now aimed squarely at Dion’s judgment in allying with her.

With the Liberals so divided, how much longer can they afford this distracting charade?

Does Dion think Afghanistan is a Holy War?

There are a lot of criticisms against the current Afghanistan mission. The at-times confused report of the Manley Panel even added to them today. The mission lacks criteria to measure progress, a definition of success, and an exit strategy. It’s unbalanced. It lacks broad support in NATO. It lacks support at home.

But until now, one of those criticisms hasn’t been to equate the mission to a holy war “from a Christian/Crusader heritage.” But that’s before Elizabeth May spoke up.

Maybe May meant to say that more non-Western nations need to be involved. Maybe she meant something else entirely. But that’s not what she said. Instead she compared the Canadian Forces to a Caucasian religious army on a war to bring Christendom to the heathens.

This isn’t the first time May has shown simply awful judgment in choosing her words. One need think only of her recent Nazi quip, which she even waded back into in the new year. In politics, the way you say things is sometimes more important than what you are saying. May doesn't seem to grasp that.

No one knows why the Liberals didn’t comment on the Manley report today, but you can bet they wish they had now. Because tomorrow they will have to explain why they don’t agree with their coalition partner’s equating Canada’s army with an ancient Pope's holy warriors.

Layton and the NDP are the obvious candidates of change.

Since the election, party polling numbers have been a snore. With the exception of a few blips, including the Liberal leadership race, they have hardly moved in two years.

But the “leadership” numbers (hat tip to Uncorrected Proofs for calling attention to them), are far more fluid and interesting.

Dion’s 20 point drop is massive.

And to add insult, you’ve got Scott Reid (you’ll remember him from such programs as “An Evening with a Paul Martin Government” and “Beer and Popcorn: ‘cause you can’t cram more crow in here”) publicly projecting the insecurity of Liberals with the hope that Dion will inherit the putative momentum of a party with no seats and no prospect of winning one.

Reid is right about this though: if the Barak Obama-style “change” winds start a'blowing in Canada, Dion, a cabinet minister since 1996, is even more sunk than he is now. But how sad is it that the once great "national governing party of Canada" is begging to be administered oxygen through their discredited backroom deal with Elizabeth May?

No, Scott, if the winds of progressive change carry northward it will be the NDP, the party of long-standing anti-status-quo credentials and a program for genuine change for the environment, for democratic reform and for cleaning up Ottawa, who are in the best position to benefit.

Change is what yesterday's NDP leader's summit and today's announcement of Jean-Claude Rocheleau as an NDP candidate in Quebec are all about.

Elizabeth May sacrifices Kyoto to appease a desperate Dion

Anyone who remains unconvinced that Elizabeth May takes her cues from the Office of the Leader if the Artificial Opposition should pay careful attention to this:

As has been discussed here and elsewhere, Stéphane Dion is ready to give Stephen Harper the mandate he wants in the coming Throne Speech votes. The Liberals are too weak and don't know what their values actually are.

Here’s the wrinkle though: yesterday’s Throne Speech included a very definitive statement that Kyoto is now dead. How can Dion support that? Well, it makes it a lot easier if Kyoto suddenly doesn’t matter anymore.

That’s where Elizabeth May comes in . . . here, and here.

If it is written honestly, history will record Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion and Stephen Harper as those, who together by indifference or design, killed the Kyoto Protocol in Canada.

For her part, Elizabeth May will be remembered for having given Kyoto a hasty burial on national television.

A place to grow . . . Ontario

The numbers say what a lot of people aren’t: Last night, the NDP were the only party to increase both their popular vote and their seats over 2003. It’s incredible!

It’s testament to the fact that Howard Hampton ran an honest campaign that stuck to the issues. In fact, if real issues that matter to everyday people – like tuition fees, property taxes, and the decline of Ontario’s manufacturing sector - were addressed and reflected in the media coverage at all it is due entirely to Hampton.

And while Dalton McGuinty wasn’t held to a minority as many had hoped, the results were far worse for both the Liberals and Conservatives who saw fewer Ontarians vote for them than four years ago.

The Greens should also be proud of increasing their vote from 2.8 to 8 percent. In large part, this was due to the MMP referenda. An unusual number of Green supporters came out to vote in this election in support of MMP.

But their Ontario result also shows what can happen when Greens campaign against the Liberal Party instead of being a compliant cheerleader as Elizabeth May is doing. Look at the recent Outremont by-election where the Dion Liberals actually used an endorsement from May in their campaign literature -- the Greens lost 2.8% of their vote and came a distant fourth.

Also interesting is that both the NDP and the Greens saw their vote share go up while the Liberals and PC's went down. Quite simply, the cliche that the NDP and Greens are fishing in the same pond is bogus. But don't try to tell that to University of Waterloo political scientist Peter Woolstencroft.

Liberal sycophants are discrediting the enviro movement, says insider

Jamey Heath is well known as the author of “Dead Centre” and for his time as a shrewd adviser to Jack Layton.

But before that, he was the communications director for Greenpeace, where he moved in the same circles and Elizabeth May and John Bennett, then-of the Sierra Club, and Louise Comeau now of the Sage Centre and Climate for Change.

In this article, Heath warns that these three are among a small segment of enviros whose close ties to the Liberal Party are risking the credibility of the movement by unfairly flattering the Liberal Party’s record of failure and applying a double-standard to the Conservatives.

Heath says:

"People like ... Louise Comeau need to be intellectually honest in that you can't validate extraordinarily backwards policy from the Liberals, and then the moment a Conservative party comes into office demand that Kyoto targets be met come hell or high water."

Heath is right. The only difference between the Liberals and Conservatives on climate change is that the Liberals promised specific action in 1993 and 1997 and failed, while the Conservatives made no promise to do anything at all.

If the issues and results do matter, then both the Liberals and Conservatives deserve to be treated with the same brush. The work being done by a lot of good people in the environmental movement deserves this kind of honesty.

May's "Nazi" comment splatters onto Liberals

For the Liberals, one of the main attractions of their backroom deal with Elizabeth May is being able to contract out their dirty work.

May has been cued up to go on endless tirades – particularly against Jack Layton and the NDP. Recall her ludicrous “What the hell is wrong with Jack Layton that he can't answer a phone call?” And who can forget her incomprehensible conspiracy theory that "the NDP fakes left and goes right."

Liberals see this as smart strategy. The realization among the more sober in their ranks is that after 13 years of “not getting it done” they haven't the credibility to make their attacks stick. There was also the hope of sparing Dr. Dion the indignity of having to sully his fingernails trifling with the NDP.

So, imagine the consternation in Liberal circles today to find that they are now having to explain the tasteless remarks coming out of a woman they called a “prophet” only days ago.

As an appetizer for what there will be generous helpings of in the future, here’s Liberal MP Glen Pearson trying to distance his party from Elizabeth May’s tactless equating of the Conservatives’ environmental policy to appeasing Nazis:

“Canadians need to get more serious about it [the environment], but the whole link to the Nazis over that went beyond the pale, for me. You have to be careful there. We have all messed up on the environment, right? . . . I just didn't think that analogy was probably the best one that could have been used."

You can bet that Liberals who haven't already expressed dread over this backroom deal are begining to right about now.

Liberals stoop to "you support the Taliban" logic.

The Coles Notes on last night's Afghanistan vote: The NDP is opposed to the ill-defined mission in Kandahar. They were in November 2005 when Paul Martin began it and that hasn't changed. They could not vote for a Liberal motion that endorsed that mission until 2009. It's as simple as that.

But today, Liberals (and their proxies) are declaring victory because their motion was defeated. (It’s been a tough couple of months for the party that made a deal with another party that over 60% of Canadians don’t support, so one can expect them to celebrate just about anything.)

But saying that the NDP was "helping" the Conservatives on the vote - as A6 of the Toronto Star blasts today - is trafficking in the same garbage as when Harper says the NDP and the Taliban are on the same side in opposing the war. It’s tortured logic (er, sorry, Iggy).

The NDP wants this ill-defined mission to end. Not to wait until 2009.

Less than a year ago, 66 Liberal MPs – including Stéphane Dion - voted with the NDP against extending the mission to 2009.

But today the Liberals are in favour of the mission. Bryon Wilfret said so in the House only six days ago: "We support this mission. Any suggestion that we do not is pure fallacy."

But today the Liberals have agreed to Harper's timeline. Their motion would keep Canada in an ill-defined mission for another two years. This isn't leadership at all.

The Liberal motion was all theatre. As Richard Warnica says over at The Tyee, "Canada’s mission to Afghanistan is already scheduled to end in 2009. So what exactly this motion would have meant isn’t entirely clear."

If the Liberals still need some tutoring on what the NDP vote meant, they only need ask their backroom-deal partner Elizabeth May. Stephen LaFrenie, her candidate in the Toronto riding of Trinty-Spadina has figured out. Perhaps he can explain it s-l-o-w-l-y to them:

"Jack Layton and the NDP were not agreeing with the Conservatives. They were continuing their stance of withdrawal which they took up in September. Once again the liberals play politics while avoiding taking a stand on real principle"

Elizabeth May is propping-up the Conservatives -- at the bar!

Elizabeth May has been foaming mad for months on the baseless allegation that Stephen Harper and the NDP are in cahoots. Who can forget her over-the-top rant on CTV Question Period:

"What the hell is wrong with Jack Layton that he can't answer a phone call? I don't understand this. He talks to Harper all the time."

Her conspiracy theories about the NDP "propping up" the Conservatives have even earned her a public rebuke from Toronto Green Party candidate Stephen LaFrenie.

All the more incredible then, that over at May's blog, Stéphane Dion' s partner in the war against Harper is gushing about her brilliant repartee with John Baird and how she and the environment minister she pretends to vilify are planning to hook-up for cocktails and "giggles" later.

People who want results for the environment aren't laughing.

May and Dion put out the trash

More signs that the Elizabeth May / Stephane Dion spin-factory have reached the end of their tether.

They've called in former Green leader Jim Harris to spin this piece of fiction. Just like May's groundless "no party leader has ever faced a challenger in an election," Harris is re-inventing history.

As Layton says in the story, it was Harris who requested the meeting because he had a list of his own demands, including that the NDP stand down against Green candidates.

Harris' version of events is baseless. People who worked the 2004 NDP campaign say the strategy on the Greens was to not talk about them at all. Talking about them gave them air. This direction was strictly adhered to at all levels. There was just no way Layton was going to give them the time of day, let alone brokering a Dion-style deal like Harris alleges today.

Greens will recall that when Harris was leader, his tactics were described as manipulative and duplicitous. They couldn't get away from him fast enough. Now that they are losing the argument over their backroom deal with Dion, they are calling on his talents again.

May struggles to defend "Axis of Ego"

This morning's panel on "The Current" on CBC Radio is must-hear-radio.

Ed Broadbent, Elizabeth May and former Alliance MP Val Merideth debate the "Axis of Ego" backroom deal.

Real Player audio here

A few of the more amazing highlights:
08:00 - Broadbent declares "this kind of politics is as old as the hills."
11:04 - May blames Ed Broadbent for the Green Party's electoral failure.
11:40 - May re-invents history to make it appear that no party leader has ever had their election contested.
11:59 - May struggles to muster the sincerity to say it was a principled decision.
12:26 - Ed holds May to account for her Liberals having done nothing for the environment for years.
13:36 - May accuses the NDP of having elected Harper by "faking left and going right." (um, you might be looking at Paul Martin's playbook there.)
18:45 - May launches the clunker that the Greens can't win a seat because their constituency is "the world."
22:46 - Tremonti concludes with "Stephane Dion could not be reached for comment."

Elizabeth May, Liberal Party candidate

One day Elizabeth May was the principled leader of the Green Party of Canada and the next she is the Liberal Party's candidate in Central Nova.

Usually people wait until they are in the House before crossing the floor. But at least we should be thankful that Elizabeth May has removed any doubt about her loyalties ahead of time.

But just the same, Green Party supporters are left feeling betrayed and wondering why they bothered.

Exasperated Green supporter Fraser Mowat has said “I know that our EDA has been working hard to get more members. Why join the Green Party when the Liberals will have a great leader that will do it all for us”?

May talks about "shared values" with the Liberals, but Green Party members don't see much to value in a party whose environmental policies May once said were "handed over to the oil patch in Alberta."

Even former Green leader Jim Harris has questioned the sense of working with a party with a worse environmental record than George Bush.

Erin Weir at Relentlessly Progressive Economics points out that by selling out to the Liberals, May has alligned herself with a party that favours further continental integration.

Even the Sun chain of papers get that Greens are being used by the Liberals. Columnist Lorrie Goldstein writes: “Let's ask so-called "progressive" voters, including May, what good comes, for them, from supporting Liberals? Where's your implemented Kyoto accord, folks? Where's your national day care program? Has child poverty been eliminated? When was the free trade deal re-negotiated? All Liberal promises, all broken, despite 12 years in power, most as a majority government.”

Dion and May are calling this cooperation, but it looks more like vote-fixing to most people. It is patently undemocratic for two people to decide who 140,000 people can or can’t vote for.

The Dion-May marriage makes sense from one stand point: they are two party leaders who should be worried about keeping their jobs.

The clock is ticking on Doomsday Dion

Swifter and fiercer than most imagined, the knives are truly coming out for Stéphane Dion since his announced back-room deal with Elizabeth May.

Here, here, and here.

But it’s not the only reason Liberals are turning on Dion.

There have been the 16 MPs who have announced they won’t be running, including the incredible departure of Belinda Stronach.

Liberals are panicking over meek candidate recruitment (what does it say when “Jodie” from “Today’s Special” is considered a star candidate?)

Liberals are falling far behind the other parties in fund raising.

Dion’s personal polling numbers have dramatically tumbled to Stockwell Day levels.

And less tangible, there is also the sense that the people around Dion - who long-time Liberal Ray Heard calls "control freaks"- aren’t up to the task.

But Dion’s ridiculous and inexplicable deal with a party that has no seats has become the flash point for Liberals.

Where this goes next is anyone’s guess. Recent history has shown that Liberals do internal wars better than anything else. It is now established fact that Paul Martin’s “Board” dispatched Chretien and his acolytes over 11 years with brutal efficiency compared to how they governed and ran elections.

While the Herle-Reid instincts take over and the Liberal Party becomes a font of anonymous comment, secretive backstabbing and internal leaks, the NDP is the only party with a leader Canadians actually like and its guns facing outward -- actually in a position to take on Harper.