Since this is for the benefit of the party, it's only right the party should be picking up the cost. Could be money well spent

It is interesting how one day the NDP complain that the Americans have too much influence on our Softwood Lumber deal and the next day they are happy to doll out those donated Union dues to go and get schooled on American Politics.

Reply to Kevin Larsen:
The two are not be conflated. The softwood deal is perceived to have been forced on Canadians and reflects American interests rather than the agreements in the NAFTA (I don't know enough about NAFTA or the softwood deal to intelligently debate it).

Google the first two presenters at the conference (Joe Trippi and John Zogby). There is a perceptible difference between Trippi, say, and Karl Rove.

I don't think there is anything hypocritical in the NDP sending communication managers to this conference.

Kevin,,,

Uhmm...one is about learning skills, the other is about control of an industry.

How could you even make such a ridiculous comparison?

Keep in mind also, the NDP has put forward a motion recently (which the BC Liberals didn't support) which would cut Union and Corporate donations.

This is completely appropriate

The NDP should be learning from Trippi about how to blow a big lead (like he did for Dean in 04)

Maybe he can even coach them on how to fall further in the polls that they are now !!!

Nothing wrong with learning about new ways of running campaigns. At least the staff are looking for new ways to do things, unlike the leadership of the party.

There's a tradition of sorts in Canada of going to the States to pick up the latest techniques, methods, etc., in the field of practical politics. Polling, advertising, direct mail fundraising and the like are all studied closely.

And there is a companion tradition of complaining when the rival party goes to the American well, claiming that they are importing ruthless US hardball tactics that have no place north of the 49th parallel.

It started when Diefenbaker complained that Kennedy's pollster was helping Pearson, and the silly accusations of inappropriate US influence in the OTHER guy's party have been going on ever since.

Just the other day the office Liberal tried to get me worked up with what he obviously thought was an ominous sounding report that the Conservatives had imported some US religious right speaker (no name offered) who told some meeting (no location given) that was attended by all the Conservatives (all of them, no less!) to be real nasty and dig up more scandals on the poor Liberals, and be real negative and totally mean about it. I had helluva time keeping a straight face.

Barry Goldwater got smoked in 1964 but it would have been interesting to talk to Karl Hess. In 1968 Eugene McCarthy lost to Humphrey who turned around and lost to Nixon but who wouldn't want to talk to the kids in the Gene Machine about their campaign? Senator McGovern lost big to Nixon in 1972 but it would have been interesting to talk to Frank Mankiewicz and Gary Hart.

Trippi might have learned some things from the Dean campaign, which clearly had some faults.

Google 'learning from your mistakes' and see what comes up.

I still say this looks like a good conference.