At the Manning Conference, Doug Ford demonstrated that he's the best bet the Progressive Conservatives have to defeat Wynne

While it wasn't exactly a lion's den that Doug Ford walked into on Saturday morning, it was in front of a crowd at the Manning Conference in Ottawa more likely to be inimical than friendly.

The Manning Conference is conservative in bent, but those attending the three-day event are mainly the 'elites' in the conservative movement, the very people Ford has said have lost touch with the common person in Ontario. His disfavor among the Conservative patrician class was suggested by the disadvantageous time slot he was allocated. Eight fifteen on a Saturday morning following a Friday night of parties and entertainment at hospitality suites that went into the wee hours seemed a guarantee of a poor turnout. But interest in the populist firebrand was so substantial that Ford drew a much larger crowd than Caroline Mulroney had the day before and was about equal to the size Christine Elliott garnered at the prime time she was given just before lunch.

The interview was conducted by columnist and radio host Anthony Furey, who is one of Canada's most capable, thoughtful, reasonable journalists. He evoked Ford's approach to leadership and the person beyond just the politician. Ford's sharp contrast to  his rivals won over many of the Manning attendees. More importantly, it is likely to win over Ontarians of all political stripes.

Christine Elliott repeated that she was willing to welcome anyone who shares her "conservative values." Ford however stressed that his movement reaches out to, and and takes in, people who are politically unaffiliated as well as those who identify as NDP or Liberal. Political party membership doesn't mean acceptance of the total fiscal irresponsibility that Kathleen Wynne has brought to the province. Ford discussed the huge numbers of hard-working union members who support him, and are fed up with the incompetence and over-taxation that are key components of the Wynne government.  I can attest to that. I have friends in public service unions who are disgusted with the waste they see of taxpayer dollars at their places of work, and how increases in taxes do little that isn't for the benefit of high-paid insiders.

It was the sort of talk, along with his commitment to lowering taxes and government interference in people's lives, that won the room over for Ford. The other factor that overwhelmingly favors Ford is his sincerity. Christine Elliott and Caroline Mulroney seem like nice people, but they exude neither  full commitment nor total sincerity. One gets the feeling from Mulroney and Elliott that they tailor their message to whichever room where they're speaking. With Ford, you get the same message, and  know that whether or not you like what you're hearing, he means it. That's something even the Toronto Star begrudgingly recognizes.

To win the general election, the Progressive Conservative leader needs to understand how to reach out to everyone in the province. Ford knows that better than anyone. Ford Nation, which the left-wing Toronto Star enjoys disparaging, is the antithesis of the reality of the establishment who deride it. If you go to a Liberal Party meeting, you could be forgiven for confusing it with a Bay Street Bankers conference from 1972. As for the NDP, one of their their typical gatherings usually is exclusively made up of more bitter, old, upper-middle class white people than a John Birch Society meeting.

But at a Doug Ford rally, you'll find a wide mix of every ethnicity, age, and income status that you can find among the province's citizens. It's that broad-based appeal that is one of the main differences between Ford and his rivals. Beyond that is charisma and the ability to communicate a message. Those are traits that neither Mulroney or Elliott possess to the impressive extent as Ford. In fact, Mulroney's public performance was so weak that rumors are now circulating that she is planning to drop out of the leadership contest soon.

Despite being abysmal at governing, Kathleen Wynne is a formidable election campaigner. Whether Ford wins the Progressive Conservative Party by election or acclimation, one thing most people have come to realize is that he is the one candidate with the determination, the fighting skills, and the credibility to defeat the Wynne government and reverse the dire economic situation the Liberals have brought to Ontario.

Sounds like that anti-Israel Boycott, Divest and Sanctions thing isn't working out as planned

This report is from Julius Suraski, of the Jewish Defense League, who was a member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's delegation to Israel this week:

Mr. Jonathan Medved, CEO of  OurCrowd Funding Group delivered a very positive and interesting presentation called "Start up Nation".    He told the delegates that Israel was quickly becoming recognized around the world for the development of high tech business and the country is developing a favourable financial, as well as intellectual market that has enabled the creation of what he referred to as "serial entrepreneurs" - business people who were developing successful, recognized business templates for the development of high-tech start-up ventures.   He noted several start-ups that have been purchased by Google and IBM for significant amounts of money and cited that the business climate was very encouraging for a future prosperous economy.

Medved stated that over the past ten years there have been over 900 successful public company exits, many of which have strongly linked the Israeli economy to the American economy.   There are over 300 multinational companies that are located in Israel which have further linked Israel strongly to the world economy - and said that in the "life sciences" field, there have been over 700 device company start-ups alone.

He commented that "Europe is addicted to Israeli products" and is one of Israel's largest trading partners despite it's boycott rhetoric.   Trade with the UK is surging despite it's fixation on the BDS movement.

Medved further stated that Asian investors are flocking to Israel.

The theme of the presentation concluded that here was a positive future in Israel for high-tech industry.

 


You can read a full transcript of Prime Minister Harper's speech to the Israeli Knesset HERE

Andrey Coyne gets the analysis dead right in The National Post

PinocchiObama lied about sequester affect

There is a growing consensus that Obama overplayed his hand in the absurd fear-mongering about the immediate impact of the sequester.

While Republican’s did their own share of fear-mongering as to military cuts, and thereby played into Obama’s hand, it still was Obama’s political hand being played.

With the acknowledgement in the media that Obama was untruthful at the presidential debate when he resolutely denied being the source of the sequester concept, to the recognition that the sky was not falling by none other than Obama himself, it seems (pick your analogy!) the Emperor has no clothes and the curtain was pulled back exposing the Wizard.

Last Night's Election: A reasonable incumbent defeated a poor challenger

The largest debt of any country in the history of the world and a decline in global leadership weren't enough to dissuade Americans from re-electing Barack Obama last night.

There are a variety of reasons but some are so obvious that it's amazing the Republicans haven't figured them out. The most glaring is that people vote for a candidate they like and it's suicidal to field someone that isn't particularly likable or compelling. Mitt Romney the candidate was not someone that exited anyone.

We live in a time where people have very short memories, but force yourself to think back to the Republican primaries and remember how just about anyone who wasn't Mitt Romney was able to lead the pack for a brief time. Herman Cain who had no governmental experience and Newt Gingrich who managed to decimate the Republican House with his awful Congressional leadership were both front-runners and only ceased to be so because of their campaigns having imploded. It wasn't that the Republicans were particularly enthused about them, any more than potential savior Rick Perry whose apparent ineptitude sank his campaign almost immediately after it was launched. But none of them were Mitt Romney and that fact alone made them appealing to most of the GOP.

If dedicated Republicans were so unenthused about Romney, it's hardly surprising that he lacked Ronald Reagan's ability to win over Democrats and enough independents to win.

But there's more to it. Every year, more people reach voting age and that young generation is for the most part alienated by the social conservatism that characterizes so many Republicans.

Abortion is a killer issue for the Republicans. Even many who think it is morally wrong do not want the state to impose laws criminalizing abortion any more than they want to see laws criminalizing immoral behavior like adultery or lying. If abortion is a sin, then let God punish it and leave the state to worry about more pressing matters like the deficit.

Being seen to be hostile towards Gays is another big problem for the Republicans. Whatever one thinks about homosexuality, being the party that wants to discriminate against people based on what they do in their private sexual lives is not helpful for convincing voters that you are the party of the future.

The people that are concerned about the next four years of an Obama presidency should try to relax a bit. Despite the partisan hyperbole, he's not nearly the radical the Republicans tried to portray.

For people concerned about American energy dependence on the middle east, a conversation I had with David Jacobson, the US Ambassador to Canada, left me with the impression that Obama will OK the Keystone Pipeline soon in his second term.

For those concerned about foreign affairs issues like Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, they should rest assured that sources close to the White House have told me that the grey hairs Obama has developed in the last couple of years have as much to do with that as the economy. Obama is determined not to let Iran get a nuke and he is no Jimmy Carter. If it's going to take bombing to prevent it then Obama will bomb Iran.

For supporters of Israel who worry about Obama's commitment to the security of the Jewish state, they should be calmed by the fact that many in Israel, from doves like Shimon Peres to hawks like Moshe Arens, have said they are fully confident in Obama's support. Part of the optics of the Israel/Obama divide have less to do with the American President's coolness to Israel than to his personal disdain for Israel's Prime Minister Netenyahu. But former Lukid Foreign Minister Arens has said that Obama's speech to the UN was as pro-Zionist than any he has heard from an Israeli leader and it reflects the stability of the two nations' relationship.

There are concerns that Obama's declared flexibility with Russia will weaken America's security abilities. On that score those disparaging Obama as being untrustworthy might be able to have hope. With any luck, Obama's promise to the Russians will be as untrustworthy as they credit him to be to Americans.

With a Republican House firmly in place, the President only has so much wiggle room. With ambitious Democrats looking ahead to 2016, a destructive Obama second term would work against them, so they will do their best to prevent any serious harm to America.

All-in-all, those who hoped against Obama's reelection have reason to be disappointed, but should not feel they have reason to fear.           

Eye on a Crazy Planet election prediction: Data shows Obama's dismal handling of the economy will lead to a Romney win

I may have to eat crow tomorrow, but after reviewing the data, it looks as if Mitt Romney will win tonight's election. Although most polls have the Republican and Democrat nominees in a dead heat, the basis for this prediction is in some very compelling data.

The most recent George Washington University poll relays that 50% of voters disapprove of the job Obama has done on the economy and a 60% disapprove of his handling of federal spending and the deficit. A full 44% and 48% "strongly" disapprove of his performance in those categories. Only 27% and 18% respectively strongly approve of how Obama has handled those aspects of the economy

The economy is the top concern of voters, followed by jobs and government spending and the deficit. In these critical areas that  matter most to Americans, Obama's ratings are dismal.

Factor that with indications that 50% of all voters disapprove of the overall job Obama has done as president with a huge 46% saying they strongly disapprove.

Americans vote with their pocketbooks. Obama's failure on his handling of the economy will, if my analysis bears out, bring his presidency to an end with the conclusion of his first term.

Romney scores big in first presidential debate

The consensus from last night's presidential debate is that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney scored a resounding victory over President Barack Obama. Romney exceeded expectations in a measured yet forceful performance. The one major advantage the Republican challenger had was that the US economy is in troubling shape, with the president seeming ineffectual in his handling of the high unemployment and  massive deficit that has characterized the whole of his term in office.

A high placed source and confidant of the President told me a few months ago that the economy would be the deciding factor in November, and if unemployment remained at 8%, where it currently is and has been for some time, then the president would likely not be reelected.. 

The New York Times had the following:

The immediate reaction to Wednesday night’s presidential debate was a torrent of criticism directed at President Obama, with Republicans, and as well as many Democrats, accusing Mr. Obama of delivering a flat, uninspired and defensive performance. 
Republicans seemed genuinely surprised that his opponent, Mitt Romney, was energetic, aggressive and presidential during his first-ever general election debate.

“In a thoroughly dominating performance, Romney bested Barack Obama in both tone and substance,” Stephen F. Hayes of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine wrote after the debate. “Obama often found himself at the end of a verbal cul-de-sac, seemingly unaware of how he’d ended up there.”

On Twitter, some of Mr. Obama’s Democratic allies expressed anger and disappointment that the president did not make better use of the “47 percent” speech by Mr. Romney and other missteps that the Democratic campaign has spent months honing into attack ads and stump speeches.

Andrew Sullivan, a blogger and strong supporter of Mr. Obama, echoed Peggy Noonan, a former Republican speechwriter, on Twitter, saying that “this is a rolling calamity for Obama.” Mr. Sullivan added: “He’s boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney!”