2015 Federal Election Thread

[thejazz97]

There's never a "right" answer in any election. There's a "lesser evils" answer. Yet for a couple elections in a row, people have continued to vote for the most evil. It's confounding.

It's not most evil. I think that distinction belongs to the Bloc.

[Warhippy]

Sun News just won't die.

Does anyone remember what happened with the last 2 media personalities Harper enlisted and then appointed senator?

Any wonder why this right wing shill of a media outlet was shut down and derided...look no further than the unbelievable glad handling hand shaking buddy buddy positions handed out after reading this

Media figures who enter politics, or political figures who join the media — it's an old story going back to Canada's early days.

And sometimes people take an extra spin through the revolving door.

Two founding executives at the now-defunct Sun News network are joining Conservative Party of Canada headquarters, after having left Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office for the network.

• Sun News Network shuts down
• OPINION | Canadians can do better than Sun News Network
• ANALYSIS | The Sun News Network sets, and journalism needs a spark

Kory Teneycke, former vice-president, and Dennis Matthews, former marketing director, will be taking on roles within the party.

Teneycke was Harper's director of communications and Matthews was PMO's advertising manager and staff director, before Sun News went on the air four years ago.

The right-of-centre network went off the air last month, after its parent firm Sun Media Corp. was unable to find a buyer for the outlet.

Other Sun News personalities who have joined the Conservative ranks include former reporters Kris Sims and Daniel Proussalidis.

Sims is now director of communications for Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole, and Proussalidis has the same position with Defence Minister Jason Kenney.

Recent, historic examples of move

The Conservatives criticized that kind of career move in a fundraising letter last year, when former CTV reporter Colin Horgan joined Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's team as a speechwriter.

"This will tell you everything you need to know about how the Ottawa media will treat us in the next election," the letter read.

"They've chosen a side, and they've dug in."

But such transitions are not uncommon on Parliament Hill, with many former journalists becoming political staff or running for public office.

Former prime minister Mackenzie Bowell was the founding member of the Canadian Press Association and was the owner of the Belleville Intelligencer until his death.

The man touted as the father of the press gallery, Thomas White, became interior minister in Sir John A. Macdonald's cabinet.

One of the fathers of Confederation, George Brown, was the publisher of the Toronto Globe. He went back to newspaper work full time after he lost his seat in 1867.

Former broadcasters Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Jim Munson were all appointed to the Senate in the last 15 years, as was former Montreal Gazette editor-in-chief Joan Fraser.

[thejazz97]

Wow... If CDC was voting, Justin Trudeau would win by a landslide and have a majority government... I mean, it's understandable after seeing all the posts on here, but... wow

[Warhippy]

Wow... If CDC was voting, Justin Trudeau would win by a landslide and have a majority government... I mean, it's understandable after seeing all the posts on here, but... wow

Ya well with Alberta's economic news this morning and the most likely introduction of a 5% sales tax instead of increasing oil royalty rates and corporate taxes.

I find it possible that for the first time in over 40 years that Alberta will lose seats in Conservative ridings.

Any slide in Alberta and it's over

[thejazz97]

Ya well with Alberta's economic news this morning and the most likely introduction of a 5% sales tax instead of increasing oil royalty rates and corporate taxes.

I find it possible that for the first time in over 40 years that Alberta will lose seats in Conservative ridings.

Any slide in Alberta and it's over

Yeah. Harper's riding is in Alberta, too. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[Warhippy]

Yeah. Harper's riding is in Alberta, too. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

he's all of a sudden pro Ontario again. Fancy that.

Alberta shed 17,000 since Christmas or some such nonsense. This isn't just layoffs but also those not having field contracts renewed.

Running now a 7 BILLION dollar structural deficit and having to take that money from that tragic pittance they call the heritage fund. (smallest amongst nations banking oil wealth no less)

Talking about raising a 5% sales tax instead of just raising corporate rates and royalty rates.

Yup. Gonna be a tough sell in Alberta. but when the going gets tough, the Albertan crowd labels the bust politician a liberal in disguise and votes further right

[thejazz97]

Yup. Gonna be a tough sell in Alberta. but when the going gets tough, the Albertan crowd labels the bust politician a liberal in disguise and votes further right

It'll be interesting to see what happens, that's for sure. I'm guessing Harper still wins out, but with a minority this time. Might be good for the country that the Conservatives can't run around doing whatever they want

[inane]

he's all of a sudden pro Ontario again. Fancy that.

Alberta shed 17,000 since Christmas or some such nonsense. This isn't just layoffs but also those not having field contracts renewed.

Running now a 7 BILLION dollar structural deficit and having to take that money from that tragic pittance they call the heritage fund. (smallest amongst nations banking oil wealth no less)

Talking about raising a 5% sales tax instead of just raising corporate rates and royalty rates.

Yup. Gonna be a tough sell in Alberta. but when the going gets tough, the Albertan crowd labels the bust politician a liberal in disguise and votes further right

It's amazing how frequently people vote against their self interests.

[aGENT]

It's not most evil. I think that distinction belongs to the Bloc.

Evil? No. Short sighted and self serving? Sure. Quite frankly if you take away the large, obvious separatism issue, the Bloc would otherwise be a far less damaging party to Canada than the Conservatives have been.

It's amazing how frequently people vote against their self interests.

No kidding, as I said:

Frankly, unless you're a rich white man with political ties and/or business interests that align with their policies (oil, war, prisons etc) and you hate the environment, science and social programs for veterans... I really can't understand why ANYONE else would vote for that party.

Yet here we are

The Conservatives play rural, blue collar folk like Yo-Yo Ma play the cello. A few short term jobs in "the fields", talk of "traditional values" and "tough on crime" etc and they eat it up.

[hsedin33]

I don't smoke weed, but the whole legalizing/taxing thing seems like a great idea, especially here in BC. I don't like how Trudeau supports bill c-51, but I'm sure every party would support it once it gets in power. I'm going with Trudeau I think, just because Harper is getting to George Bush-y for me.

[thejazz97]

I don't smoke weed, but the whole legalizing/taxing thing seems like a great idea, especially here in BC. I don't like how Trudeau supports bill c-51, but I'm sure every party would support it once it gets in power. I'm going with Trudeau I think, just because Harper is getting to George Bush-y for me.

Well, you remember the year Obama got in power...

[Lockout Casualty]

Hypocrites in a hurry — Harper’s mad dash to pass C-51

Some issues, the Harper government tells us, are so important, so controversial that no legislation can go forward unless it is preceded by extensive consultation and analysis. Unless it can. Follow along — and if you can make sense of this, you have a future in PR.

Last month, the Conservatives killed a Liberal motion that would have fast-tracked the study and debate of physician-assisted suicide. The reason for urgency was plain enough: The Supreme Court of Canada had struck down the legal ban on assisted death and gave Parliament 12 months to fill the legislative void.

Bob Dechert, parliamentary secretary to the minister of Justice, explained why the Conservatives are in no rush:

… given the special circumstances of this issue, which is among the most important that we will ever have to deal with, and in the context of this year, I do not think we should be rushed into doing something that is inappropriate and not take the time to properly and carefully consider it and hear all opinions.

Fair enough. It’s a big hot-button issue and we want to get it right the first time. Terrorism is also a big hot-button issue, as are measures that encroach on Canadian civil liberties.

So why is Ottawa taking a go-slow approach to assisted death when, in the case of C-51, the plan appears to be to steamroll the opposition, torque up public anxiety over the vaguest of threats and accuse critics of being closet terrorists? Bet you can guess why.

After twice limiting debate in the House of Commons on C-51, the government pushed for just three days of study at committee, ultimately agreeing to eight days and 48 witnesses.

That’s not enough time even to fake sober analysis. The Conservatives are allowing the Commons just a little over a week to review the most significant changes to Canada’s security and surveillance laws since in over a decade — less time than the average college undergrad might spend picking out a bachelor apartment.

Remember the context. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, the Liberal government of the day also introduced sweeping legislation that gave the state unheard-of powers to combat terrorism. The committee that studied the 2001 bill sat for 19 days and heard from 80 witnesses. The government actually listened to the witnesses and, ultimately, agreed to substantial amendments.

The Official Opposition at the time was the Canadian Alliance, precursor to the modern Conservative party. Were they content with 80 witnesses and 19 days of committee study? Here’s what Alliance leader Stockwell Day had to say at the time:

I am disappointed and concerned that the government decided to rush through this complicated, controversial and powerful piece of legislation without debate and input. That was necessary for legislation of this nature.

The Canadian Alliance has consistently called for legislation that would give the government the tools to fight terrorism. However, the government has cut off debate and cut it off in a premature fashion.

This reveals what we have pointed out before: an ongoing contempt for the democratic process …

What wasn’t good enough for Day is just dandy for Prime Minister Harper, who has warned of dire consequences for the safety of every living Canadian if the bill isn’t studied and passed “as quickly as possible”.

Granted, a longer committee process might not be all that useful anyway, given the childish way Conservative caucus members have been behaving to date. Verbally attacking and insulting witnesses. Accusing them of harbouring links to terrorists. One backbencher asked a witness from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association if she was “fundamentally opposed to taking terrorists off the streets”. These are not the sorts of questions you ask if you’re interested in the answers.

And you can get a sense of how seriously the government takes this committee review from a glance at the long list of experts requested by the opposition parties as witnesses, but left off the list by the Conservatives: University of Ottawa law professor and digital privacy expert Michael Geist; Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien; Maher Arar; Dennis O’Connor, the commissioner of the inquiry into Arar’s torture; the Canadian Bar Association; former prime ministers; Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley, who found CSIS had lied to obtain warrants; and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, which I represent.

What do all of these individuals and groups have in common? Two things: They know the law — much better, it seems, than the people who drafted C-51 — and they’ve all been critical of the bill’s effects on privacy and civil rights.

There’s an added benefit to controlling the witness list, of course: You can shove words into the mouths of anyone you don’t invite. Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney assures us that he has “consulted” with Therrien. What he doesn’t say is that this ‘consultation’ amounted to Therrien telling him the bill is a dangerous and misguided spasm of government overreach into the private lives of Canadians — that C-51 will give the government “virtually limitless powers to monitor and … profile ordinary Canadians”.

So what does Stockwell Day have to say about all this? The committee members may never know; although the Liberals wanted to hear from him, Day never received an invitation to testify.

Limit debate, suppress critical views, twist the truth — they’re running down every page in the Conservatives’ pre-election playbook. When NDP Leader Tom Mulcair asked in the Commons why the government was putting the “emphasis on getting the committee to study the bill as quickly as possible, not as thoroughly as possible”, Blaney responded with an ad hominem attack:

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than an opposition leader who attacks the credibility of those who are there to protect us.

Let us face reality. For 30 years, those men and women at CSIS, working at protecting Canadians, have worked within the law. I invite the member to apologize for pretending that they have broken the law, because that is not the case. This is in the report. They are complying with the law.

Blaney needs to read his own department’s briefing books a little more closely. Maher Arar and Justice Mosley could talk at length about how good CSIS is at working “within the law” — if they were allowed to.

This is all gutter politics, of course. Terror seems to be playing well in an election year. The Conservatives know that the longer the committee studies the bill, the more people come forward to testify to its many and manifest flaws, the harder it will be to present C-51 to the Canadian public as the nation’s sword and shield.

Let people drill down into the details and they’ll worry less about what terrorists might do to them and more about what the government intends to do. The last thing the Conservatives can afford to give us is time.

Debate is not a luxury, or something to be sprinted through in order to get things done. It’s the essence of our system of government; without it, we don’t have a system — just government. Stockwell Day said it in 2001 and it’s still true. Wonder what he’d say today?

Michael Spratt is a well-known criminal lawyer and partner at the Ottawa law firm Abergel Goldstein & Partners. He has appeared in all levels of court and specializes in complex litigation. Mr. Spratt is frequently called upon to give expert testimony at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. He is a past board member of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and is on the board of directors of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa. Mr. Spratt’s continuing work can be found at www.michaelspratt.com and on twitter at @mspratt

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/03/18/hypocrites-in-a-hurry-harpers-mad-stampede-to-pass-c-51/

Another bucketful from the deep well of CPC hypocrisy. They bitched about omnibus bills, then presented their own omnibus legislation that was literally 10x anything the Libs conjured up. They bitched about concentrating power in the PMO, only to have the PMO run away with its agenda in the face of all opposition, foreign and domestic (and by that I mean own party and opposition). Today (or rather Wednesday) it's limiting debate for an issue they previously recognized as needing careful consideration.

[Kragar]

Another bucketful from the deep well of CPC Major Political Party hypocrisy. They bitched about omnibus bills, then presented their own omnibus legislation that was literally 10x anything the Libs conjured up. They bitched about concentrating power in the PMO, only to have the PMO run away with its agenda in the face of all opposition, foreign and domestic (and by that I mean own party and opposition). Today (or rather Wednesday) it's limiting debate for an issue they previously recognized as needing careful consideration.

Fixed. When the shoe is on the other foot, the rules are different. I'm too far removed from Canadian politics to dredge up similar items, but you could take the article you posted and replace Obama for Harper and Obamacare for C-51, and the story is pretty much the same. Gotta pass the law before you find out what's in it, right? Maybe the US debt limit is an even better example, since Obama was vehemently against raising it when Bush was in office, but he has since changed his position now that he is in charge.

(not trying to deflect the thread towards US politics... just giving examples most of us may be familiar with. US politics have been debated seemingly to death here on CDC)

Typically, the party in power wants to push their agenda as fast as possible, so they can work on the next hot-button. The opposition wants to slow it down to make the leader look ineffective.

BTW, I'm not defending Harper here. While I am conservative, I agree with your point that the law should be properly debated. People make mistakes, and debate is supposed to weed out some of those mistakes. There is just so little interest in collaboration in our polarized political climate that debate now is all too often about posturing rather than doing what is right for the country.

[bigbadbob]

The government already allows countless deaths from tabaco and alcohol, not to mention all the secondary ailments caused by both substances, the crippling but non fatally so illnesses from smoking, strokes/COPD/ etc, and all the burden on society from alcohol misshaps like little Timmy and Suzys new baby they just conjured up after a night of drinking. Countless victims of drunk drivers so on and so forth.

The vast majority of banned substances, in their pure form, taken responsably, are vastly less damaging then alcohol or tobaco. Likewise, I don't personally party anymore Im past those days, but I'd rather hang out in a club full of people on ecstasy, then in a club full of drunks looking to either fight or f*ck.

So you don't like people who abuse drugs, but think the people doing the banned drugs are all going to be responsible with it??

[vancouvercanucks2010]

Voting myself as a write in this year. Here is my political promises. I will do absolutely nothing, already better than most of the political platforms around here. Anyone doesn't want to see their country getting worse by doing something, why not see the country deteriorate by doing nothing?

[aGENT]

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/03/22/go-big-inside-the-24-million-two-year-federal-plan-to-market-canadian-oil/#.VRL1efnF8lR

‘Go big': Inside the $24 million, two-year federal plan to market Canadian oil

WASHINGTON D.C., United States - The multimillion-dollar campaign to market Canadian oil in the U.S. was hard to miss.

The Maple Leaf was plastered on the walls of subway stops in Washington, D.C., and it popped up in all sorts of American publications with messages like, "America's Best Energy Partner," and "Friends and Neighbors."

Documents obtained by The Canadian Press offer a peek at the behind-the-scenes strategic considerations in 2013, as the federal government conducted a $1.6-million U.S. ad campaign that grew into a $24-million, two-year program that wraps up this month.

The records, released under the Access to Information Act, reveal the websites to be shunned as advertising outlets; the Internet search words that would trigger a Canadian energy ad; the coveted locations for billboards in Washington, D.C.; the rejected proposals; and the U.S. ad salespeople who angled for a slice of the publicity pie.

Throughout the two-year campaign, the Keystone pipeline issue remained unresolved. But that doesn't mean it failed, defenders say. In fact, the ads didn't mention Keystone. The original call for tenders spelled out the mission: to defend Canadian energy's reputation against hostile groups and lawmakers threatening anti-oilsands measures in the U.S. and Europe.

One proposed weapon for fighting back: pop-up ads.

Someone whose name was blacked out proposed using so-called takeover or roadblock ads that would monopolize people's computer screens: "If we're going to do this right, we might as well go big."

But a marketing manager at Natural Resources Canada suggested a more delicate balance. "We've attempted to maximize our non-standard presence — without being offensive," he replied.

The subway posters were designed to grab the right people's attention, but there was some initial disappointment on that score. Space was snapped up at two downtown D.C. metro stations, but the most coveted spots close to Capitol Hill were unavailable.

There were many conversations about websites.

LinkedIn was used, then dropped because of a disappointing click-count. Buzzfeed was interesting but the marketing manager at Natural Resources didn't want federal ads appearing underneath glib headlines with acronyms like LOL, OMG and WTF: "I'm a bit weary of their content," he wrote.

He warned against using Facebook: "I think it's dangerous." Aggressively partisan news sites were dropped, with Drudge Report and MSNBC turfed in favour of the more centrist National Journal.

Google was embraced. The campaign identified more than 250 terms that, when plugged into the ubiquitous search engine, would elicit a Canadian energy ad.

The search terms included "Keystone," "Canadian oil," "Alberta oil," "tarsands," "greenhouse gas emissions" — and less-obvious ones about Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan environmental policy.

One famous term was apparently rejected. "I do not suspect Google will approve Obama as a (keyword)," said an ad-buyer from M5, one of the agencies working on the project. "Just giving you a heads up."

For print ads, there were clear conditions. Spots were not to appear next to any anti-Keystone editorials or ads. Space was purchased in the Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Forbes editions on three continents and in publications in Beijing, Shanghai, London and Brussels.

U.S. ad-sellers took notice. They began calling with various pitches, and the correspondence shows that Canadian officials discussed ways to politely turn them down.

One unsuccessful pitch involved an ambitious project with an eight-page advertising spread in the New Yorker and a Washington event featuring policy-makers. When warned of the catch, the steep price tag, a Canadian diplomat responded: "That's quite an expensive catch."

Another idea considered, and rejected, was to turn Washington city buses into wraparound ads.

There were funds for advocacy — available to cover travel and hotel costs for people who might have some influence in a public discussion about Canadian resources.

There was opposition research. The embassy kept tabs on the work of environmentalists such as billionaire Tom Steyer and on the number of YouTube clicks for an anti-Keystone video featuring Robert Redford.

An internal memo to Washington embassy staff told them to stick to talking points if they were asked about the ads during a diplomatic reception.

Among the official lines: natural resources support 1.8 million Canadian jobs, they account for almost one-fifth of the country's economic activity, and the ads were a timely and appropriate endorsement of the sector.

So was the campaign successful?

A separate budget was used for gauging the public response — $58,335 for an initial focus group and $49,393 later for a poll.

The poll showed most D.C. respondents had seen the ads. They didn't quite agree, however, on what they'd seen. The most popular takeaway message, at 17 per cent, was that Canada and the U.S. were friends and energy partners. Building Keystone XL got 11 per cent.

One federal official says the ads were never designed to sway people about Keystone. They were there to spread a broader message people could remember and repeat, about an energy partnership with Canada.

"The ads were there to help create the political space for a (Keystone) approval."

Because the billion dollar per year subsidy wasn't enough, Harper spends millions more paying the ad bill for Chevron, Shell, etc. Talk about insult to taxpayer injury.

[Allcanadiansurfer]

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/03/22/go-big-inside-the-24-million-two-year-federal-plan-to-market-canadian-oil/#.VRL1efnF8lR

‘Go big': Inside the $24 million, two-year federal plan to market Canadian oil

Because the billion dollar per year subsidy wasn't enough, Harper spends millions more paying the ad bill for Chevron, Shell, etc. Talk about insult to taxpayer injury.

Well that looks pretty stupid now. Thing is, they'd have to do much worse to lose this one. People can still look up Harper's early life and see that he worked for what he has got. Trudeau's doesn't look good next to that....

[aGENT]

Well that looks pretty stupid now. Thing is, they'd have to do much worse to lose this one. People can still look up Harper's early life and see that he worked for what he has got. Trudeau's doesn't look good next to that....

[Heretic]

Here's a Harper then and now comparison:

Maybe Stephen Harper needs to have a chat with his former self.

In early 2006, while but a humble Opposition leader, he attacked the government of the day for failing to "respect" public servants and vowed to treat the public service as a "partner" instead of an "enemy."

Harper's own record since taking office has proved quite the opposite -- to the point where it's all-to-easy for the media to voice suspicion that the Tories are behind current "unnamed sources" out to discredit senior public servant Michael Ferguson.

The timing is certainly suspicious -- right before the scheduled release of the Auditor General's report into the Senate spending mess.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time the Conservatives have gone after a top level public servant or the public service.

On the eve of the 2006 election, Stephen Harper said he’d do things differently:

"I have a great respect for the professionalism and dedication of our public servants. I admire their commitment to our country and believe they play a crucial role in its governance. If elected, my party and I would not only secure their role, we would strengthen it for the benefit of all Canadians. For more than a decade, public servants have been mistreated and neglected by successive governments."

We know what happened next, with Harper doing more or less the exact opposite of what he said he’d do:

1. Program spending and job cuts

Opposition Harper 2006:

"First and foremost, and contrary to fearmongering, we have

no plans

to cut departmental program spending."

Government Harper:

In just the last six years, federal departments have seen $45.8 billion in cuts fromplanned spending. Meanwhile, 26,000 public servants have lost their jobs and another 8,900 are at risk of losing them.

The cuts have led to serious reductions in vital services for Veterans Affairs, Statistics Canada, and food safety inspections.

Needless to say, public servants have not “welcomed” the changes Opposition Harper promised. Last year, they again boycotted National Public Service Week.

So much for restoring pride and respect!

2. Scapegoating top level public servants

Opposition Harper 2006:

"We would provide meaningful protection for whistleblowers -- guaranteeing them access to the courts and adequate legal counsel when needed. I would not take public servants for granted, nor would I ask them to take the

blame for our mistakes

. Instead, I would give them the direction and resources they need to do their jobs for the people of Canada."

Government Harper:

If we played Harper’s whole discography of scapegoating and bullying public servants, you’d be here all day. But his greatest hits include Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLachlin (repeatedly), Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and former Auditor General Sheila Fraser -- he seems to have a real hate-on for that particular position.

When not scapegoating, the Harper government has a habit of simply firing or failing to reappoint public servants who get in his way.

3. Ignoring collective bargaining agreements

Opposition Harper 2006:

"If I am elected prime minister, I would extend an open hand to all public servants... I would not take public servants for granted, nor would I ask them to take the blame for our mistakes."

Government Harper:

The Conservatives currently find themselves in hot water for sidestepping collective bargaining in negotiations with the public service -- all over a preemptive move in thefederal budget to slash sick pay and save $900 million.

Looks like someone's taking the "blame" for the Conservatives' inability to balance the budget on their own.

4. Muzzling government scientists

Opposition Harper 2006:

"If elected, a Conservative government would .. restore the pride and respect the purpose of Canada's public service. Our platform... outlines a series of steps we would take to

safeguard the independence and integrity

of the public service."

Government Harper:

Independence and integrity, eh? Government scientists say both have been hampered under Harper's leadership -- with a majority fearing the career consequences of sharing their work with the public, and 1/4 saying they've been asked by their department to exclude or alter information for non-scientific reasons.

When allowed to speak to the media, scientists' say their message is carefully controlled by what some have called a partisan "spin machine."

One of Canada’s top scientists recently even compared the Harper government’s pattern of snooping and muzzling to what happened in the Soviet Union under the KGB.

Things are so bad, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada recently said it will fight to have "scientific integrity" enshrined through collective bargaining.

At the end of his editorial, Harper concluded:

"Canadians across the country believe that it is time for a change. They are tired of scandals, tired of RCMP investigations, and tired of waste and mismanagement.

He could have been talking about 2015.

http://www.pressprogress.ca/stephen_harper

[thejazz97]

^Interesting article.

I'm still trying to figure out who I would vote for if I could. I like Harper's morals way, way, way better than anyone else's, but his actions have proven that maybe he isn't the best candidate. I'm torn.