DURHAM RIDING

Time to talk turkey . . .

. . . and I dont' mean the kind you're likely to be carving in to this weekend.

When you get over the turkey tireds, it's straight into election Tuesday. And wouldn't it be nice if voter turnout was at least reasonable for a change?

Now, I know that if you're the type of person who reads an election blog, you are likely the type of person who's going to vote. So, here is my challenge to you, as you head into Thanksgiving weekend: when you're out visiting, try to find someone you think is unlikely to vote, and try to talk them into actually going to a polling station and exercising their right on Tuesday.

Voter turnout has been abysmal over the last few years and is getting worse. Statistics indicate that those born in 1970 and after are least likely to vote, and I have to wonder why --- we're the ones who have longer to pay taxes, feel effects of changes to the health care system . . . I could go on and on. Voting is really in our best interest.

So, take my Thanksgiving challenge. Please.

The biggest issue

I'm really interested to hear from readers about what they feel is the biggest issue facing Canadians is right now.

We put a number of issues to the candidates --- the economy, the environment, Afghanistan and manufacturing. Those stood out to us as the major issues of this election. I would contend health care ought be right up there, too, particularly after a conversation I had yesterday with a doctor (while he put needles in my head; good job he and I have similar views on the issue. It was NOT a time for disagreeing) about the importance of universally accessible, government (or taxpayer) funded healthcare.

What else stands out as a major issue this election? What would you ask the candidates, if you had their ears for a moment?

So, does it make a difference?

Does Andrew McKeever's departure alter the race in Durham riding? Hard to say. But if you look at past results, it appears conceivable it could shake things up a bit.

In 2004, it was a fairly tight race in Durham, with Liberal Tim Lang losing to first-timer Bev Oda, now our Conservative incumbent, by only 1,265 votes -- Ms. Oda got 20,813 votes; Mr. Lang 19,548; Bruce Rogers, running for the NDP, was well back with 7,721.

In 2006, it wasn't even close --- Ms. Oda handily won. If you look at the total number of votes Ms. Oda received, that number is 149 votes more than the Liberals and NDP in the riding won combined.

But now the question is, which way would those votes -- which would otherwise have gone to the NDP -- go, now that Mr. McKeever has left the race? And to what extent has the political climate changed? Has the number of Liberal and NDP votes dropped enough to make this a non-issue? Will the Green party be the ultimate winner of those votes that might otherwise have gone to the NDP? Or are we suddenly in the midst of a much closer race than we had been in before Mr. McKeever dropped out?

What do you think?

Andrew McKeever has resigned

In an emailed statement from the federal NDP sent late Friday night, Durham NDP candidate Andrew McKeever tendered his resignation.

For the full story, see newsdurhamregion.com .

Who's behind the candidate?

We had this great idea for an election story . . . we were going to have each candidate let us know who the key person in their campaign was. The only problem is, in some ridings, reporters got absolutely no response to their requests, so we scrapped the idea to run the features in each zone.

I did hear back from two of my candidates, and I think that, though we're not using the information in the paper, that what I was sent warrants some attention, so I'm posting it here.

Conservative Bev Oda and Liberal Bryan Ransom answered. Here's what they had to say:

BEV ODA

My Campaign Manager, Mike Wilson, is a young man who is extremely involved in his community. A graduate of the University of Western Ontario, where he studied Political Science, Mike has a passion for Canadian politics. Beginning as a youth, he has been active with the Conservative Party of Canada and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.  In fact, he is a former president of the Ontario PC Youth Association and a former Vice-President of the Ontario PC Party. As a lifelong resident of Uxbridge, Mike has the advantage of knowing the people and places in our riding.

It is the Campaign Manager's duty to ensure the campaign functions smoothly.  The Campaign Manager encourages volunteers, arranges for our administrative needs and responds to issues of importance to our constituents. As the Campaign Manager, he is also responsible for the many details of canvassing, installing signs, scheduling, preparing campaign literature, and the candidate's relationship with community organizations and the local media. 

Mike is more than willing and able to take on all of the responsibilities of the job.  He values our volunteers and motivates us all to make one more phone call or knock on one more door at the end of a very long day of campaigning.

We have a great team, with lots of experience, knowledge, enthusiasm, and youth.  Mike embodies these qualities and is a great manager for our team.

BRYAN RANSOM:

I would like to take this opportunity to first thank all the volunteers and supporters of my campaign who have worked diligently since my nomination and the beginning of the election.  Without their time, effort and generosity this campaign would not be possible.  Having friends, family and new supporters making phone calls, canvassing with me door-to-door and putting up signs inspires me each day. 

Since my decision to seek the nomination for the Durham Liberals my family has been by my side.  They have been there every step of the way and helped me through the ups and the downs.  My wife Roberta and my children Isaac, Natasha and Lael have spent countless hours working behind the scenes and keeping me level when it is needed the most.

My family has made many sacrifices in order to help me succeed.   Isaac has postponed his Masters studies to help manage my campaign, Natasha has placed her career on hold to work in my office and Lael is home from school at every opportunity to drive another sign in the ground.  Roberta, who works tirelessly in her career, finds the hours in her day to knock on doors with me, make those important phone calls and is there to support me emotionally through this campaign. 

This journey would be impossible to do alone.  With the blessing support of my family, friends, and volunteers, I am able to go out each day.  And for that I am grateful and say thanks to everyone.

Another day . . .

. . . another "all"-candidates debate short a candidate.

And no response from the federal NDP or Andrew McKeever, the Durham candidate, as to why he's not been showing up for such engagements. I mean, I think I know, but I need someone with some authority to confirm it.

The event at Clarke High School was another good show for students, with the teens asking lots of questions . . . and strangely, some of the candidates doing the same. Candidates asked dozens of rhetorical questions of the students. Strange. Note to candidates: rhetorical questions are fine, but, really, use 'em sparingly.

A high school debate . . . what did happen, what didn't happen

Metroland videographer Stefanie Swinson and I attended an all-candidates' debate at Holy Trinity Catholic Secondary School in Courtice this morning, and it was as notable for what didn't happen as it was for what did.

First, for what did happen: a group of bright Grade 10 students asked articulate and meaningful questions, and the candidates --- at least those who showed up --- provided interesting answers that bore in mind the age of their audience. It's for that reason that I really try to attend one high school debate each election. Most debates, I find, are based on questions from partisan audience plants. The kids' questions in high school debates are almost entirely without guile.

And now, for what didn't happen: NDP candidate Andrew McKeever didn't show up, nor was any explanation, beyond "Mr. McKeever couldn't be here today," given. He also didn't show up for the Rogers' Durham candidates' debate last night.

I've had one e-mail from Mr. McKeever, but it didn't address the Facebook situation, nor did it speak to his attendance (or lack thereof) at upcoming events.

I've called the federal NDP to see if they can address the issue. No answer yet. Watch newsdurhamregion.com for updates.

I'll also be at an all-candidates meeting at Clarke High School in Newcastle tomorrow. I'll let you know then who does and doesn't show up.

It has been suggested . . .

. . . by one commenter here that when Andrew McKeever dropped the c-bomb, it wasn't directed at Krystalline Kraus. And actually, if Andrew McKeever were responding to requests for interview, which he is not, despite multiple attempts, I'd ask him myself.

Whatever the case, I'm going to post Mr. McKeever's thread in which he makes the comment --- it's a little unclear, but the last reference he makes before that one special comment is about Ms. Kraus. The only editing is to blank out all but the first letter of words we don't use around here . . . at least in written form. All grammar, capitalization, etc. is as Mr. McKeever wrote it on Facebook.

(Now's the time to cover the eyes of any little ones. You don't want them reading this, even with the really nasty stuff blanked out.)

Andrew McKeever (Toronto, ON) wrote: Well Boyd, looks like you had your answer.

    These American Traitors have no place in my Country (and I say 'my' simply because you so obviously have no respect for it).

    There are bona fide (and by that I mean REAL) refugees out there. Not American crybabies that are trying to turn this country into a hotel. Maybe that is why Krystalline Kraus is so interested in this topic . . . having had no real chance to get l___ by any domestic male she needs to encourage others, new meat as it were . . .

    Regardless. If your pal Stephane Dion was capable of running a government, he would haev ensured that the 'Minority' government to which you repeatedly refer had fallen. Unfortunately (for you) that is not the case. Prime Minister Harper has done everything short of suckerpunching Dion in the House to facilitate an election. It is not coming.

    You people are f______ knobs.

    Do you think the Taliban cares about Nuremberg IV?

    Answer a f______ question you c___. I can guarantee, if I ever see you face to face I will make you squeal for the same authorities that you have such a (baseless) disdain for.

    You are prejudiced, and you are ignorant. You are a moron. And no amount of citations are going to absolve you.

It  could be read as being directed at either one of them. I'd love to talk to Mr. McKeever, and find out to whom it was directed, but as I said, he won't call back.

Regardless of to whom it was directed, I would submit this oughtn't be normal discourse for a 34-year-old (he's only three years younger than me!) university-educated man who two months later, puts forth his name to run for political office, especially for a party whose claim to fame is equality and open-mindedness. These aren't his only offensive comments in the Facebook thread, but they're pretty representative of what was there . . . unti it was all erased.

Sometimes, it's about the bigger picture

The Andrew McKeever/Facebook situation is causing quite a stir.

The response has been as anticipated from a lot of sources, but there's one that I find disturbing: the reaction of the very woman about whom some of the most disturbing comments were made.

Krystalline Kraus is the administrator of a Facebook site aimed at supporting war resisters. She was also called a word that I --- and I'm a long way from a prude --- won't say. I'll put it this way: in university, we would avoid saying the actual word by saying "see you next Tuesday," something of an acronym for the vulgarity.

Here are her complete comments:

Firstly, let me address the issue of Mr. McKeever's comments. What Mr. McKeever has said was sexist, offensive and wrong. No woman should ever be called those names or threatened in such a way. Ever. Since this encourages a toxic public climate of hatred which affects us all.

This said, I find it amazing that the Liberal Party has so much concern for my well being when I have had zero contact with them. Nothing. They never contacted me about these recent press release.

Obviously, all political parties right now are learning a hard lesson regarding their choice of candidates.

To Mr. McKeever's situation, he has apologized for the comments he made to everyone in public and by reaffirming his commitment -- one he shares with the NDP -- to end the war in Afghanistan and support for the June 3rd motion in Parliament, a united opposition vote allowing war resisters sanctuary in Canada. This is a motion that the Conservative government is defying by refusing to impose it, again, despite the vote in the House.

For both these goals to be achieved, for these are the real issues of the campaign right now, both the Liberals, NDP, Green and Bloc party need to focus on challenging the Harper government.

For example, let me point out that polls confirm that the majority of Canadians believe Iraq war resisters have the right to not participate in what has been called an illegal and unjust Iraq war and should not be deported back to the United States for punishment for standing up for what they believe.

As the Liberal Party also voted to support Iraq war resisters, I would humbly ask that the Liberal Party stop this tit-for-tat candidate battle and work with the NDP to confront the real threat of a pro-war, pro-BUSH Conservative Party majority in this election.

I have a number of issues with her statement, starting with the fact that it seems funny someone could so diametrically alter their view as Mr. McKeever says he has since July of this year. It was only two months ago that he was making comments that were as opposed to the NDP stance on U.S. war resisters as is possible.

But this isn't just about that. This is about more than that Mr. McKeever called Ms. Kraus a see-you-next-Tuesday. This really isn't about Ms. Kraus at all. This is about the fact that Mr. McKeever has very recently espoused views that (a) contradict the position of the very party he's running for, on the matter of war resisting, and (b) may show a contempt for women in general -- and the NDP has always said it is inclusive and not tolerant of hatred.

Sometimes, it's not about to whom you say offensive things. Sometimes, it's about what the things you say say about you.

A little vetting, anyone???

I can't remember an election where so much has come out of the woodwork about candidates from all three major parties. It's been ridiculous. And, not even Durham has been immune.

Our own NDP candidate, Andrew McKeever, is apparently quite a rampant Facebooker. And one would have thought, given all the warnings we hear that prospective employers check Internet forums like Facebook to find out a little more about prospective employees, that perhaps he might have at least cleaned up his act a little bit before tossing his hat in the ring.

But, an array of what some
[cough, cough]
might call misogynistic, in some cases threatening, anti-war resister rants which Mr. McKeever admits to were found on Facebook this week . . . leading me to believe the NDP didn't follow modern vetting processes for candidates. I mean, the NDP always contends it's (a) inclusive and committed to diversity, and (b) it's the only party that's been vocal about supporting deserters.

And, to be fair, it doesn't seem like the others have, either: boneheaded, potentially offensive comments by both Conservatives and Liberals have also come to light since the election was called, and caused some parties to turf some candidates. In fact, Liberal leader Stephane Dion dumped a candidate Friday, over comments about 9-11.

But locally, Andrew McKeever isn't being dumped. Of course, we're past the Sept. 22 deadline, so his name would have remained on the ballot anyway. But the federal NDP says the "fulsome apology" he issued (only after it became clear he was caught) is enough to not remove their backing.

The federal NDP rep I talked to wouldn't say what would have happened if this had been found out pre-Sept. 22 --- "Hypothetical," they said.

But I would hope they would have dropped him, out of respect for NDPers in the riding, because what he expressed in July --- whether he's sorry for it in September or not --- is simply not consistent with NDP ideology. This leaves the dyed-in-the-wool orangies with a tough choice --- vote for the party that represents their views most closely, despite it being a vote for someone who has quite publicly NOT done so, or vote for someone else.

Tough one.