Maybe. The other scary option depends on how much publicity it draws. If in fact it draws enough that it becomes "fashionable" for all so called "progressive" people in the riding to vote for May rather than their relatively weaker candidates (will Alexis MacDonald run again or is she happy milking off the Stephen Lewis Foundation?) there could be enough people to cause the demise of MacKay.

Last election breakdown:

MacKay 17 134
Alexis (NDP) 13 861
Liberal 10 349
Green 671
Marxist 124 (are there really 124 lunatics in that riding?)

All in all this is a win-win option for her, as you point out, a loss is a win, and if she does squeak out a win, imagine the credibility?

All thanks to the Media Dogs.

Posted by: langmann at March 19, 2007 12:42 AM

---

(are there really 124 lunatics in that riding?)

Sure, look how many voted NDP.

Posted by: Alienated at March 19, 2007 12:48 AM

---

Add in the possibility of strategic voting by Liberals who would rather see a defeat of the Conservative candidate rather than a victory for the Liberals, and you suddenly have a very nervous Peter McKay.

Posted by: RJ at March 19, 2007 12:51 AM

---

I tend to think that if an anti-MacKayite were to strategically vote, voting for his strongest opponent whose party has official status is the best option. Electing May has the actual effect of electing an Independent--you feel good about yourself for a day, but then you realize your MP has even less influence than an opposition backbencher. And strategic voting has its risks too. Voting for May just might end up splitting in MacKay's favour.

Posted by: Blackstone at March 19, 2007 01:07 AM

---

There will be all sorts of reasons that can explain her loss: Peter MacKay's popularity, his clout as a cabinet minister, the particularly strong tradition in Atlantic Canada to go with incumbents.

And Peter's incredible good looks...

Posted by: Joanne (TB) at March 19, 2007 04:47 AM

---

Another positive for May is the fact that she will get to debate McKay at least once. This is sure to bring more media coverage and gives her the chance to showcase her party against the backdrop 'anti-environment' tories.

I think I will be watching the playoffs that night...yawwwn!

Posted by: Slider at March 19, 2007 07:53 AM

---

The flaw in the post's logic is that it assumes May wants publicity over a seat

Posted by: Erik Sorenson at March 19, 2007 08:51 AM

---

She knows Green politics are unsellable to most of the productive electorate...but she will use this high profile race as a soap box to natter about Green policy....I just hope she doesn't get a free ride from the press and they challenge the more outrageous contentions she has put forward.

No Lizzy, the world is not going to end tomorrow and no it is not Steven Harper who is the green antiChist ( sigh)...frik, I wish these green Bolsheviks would get some new talking points that don't bore the ass off well adjusted people.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 19, 2007 09:56 AM

---

You've raised an angle I hadn't thought of, but I still think the negatives outweigh the positives on this baffling move.

As David Akin has pointed out, the riding is a 2-hour drive from Halifax.

Even if reporters are freed up by Harper not taking them on his plane, how many of them are going to make THAT trip? And how is May going to run a national campaign and spend any credible time in the riding?

I think she should have run in Vancouver. She could have done her national media availabilities by 3 p.m. (6 p.m. EST) and still have plenty of time to do B.C. evening events and rallies.

Posted by: Joan Tintor at March 19, 2007 10:48 AM

---

Or you could interpret this news as proof that the Clown Party has has no intentions of winning what so ever and are merely single issue activists who happen to run candidates to try to get some exposure .....

Posted by: KyleD at March 19, 2007 11:34 AM

---

60% of Mckay's riding voted against him. This combined with weak performance as an MP will help Elizabeth May. May will also (probably) get publicity at leaders debates.

Watch for buckets of spending announcements in Mckay's riding just before an election with the caveat that the sppending will be withdrwan if the CONs or Mckay loses.

Posted by: aa at March 19, 2007 11:41 AM

---

@ Blackstone: You're right, for the so called "progressives" it would be a fleeting feel good moment to all gang up together and elect May.

However feel good moments are exactly what "progressives" like. Its the long term picture they often forget.

Posted by: langmann at March 19, 2007 11:45 AM

---

60% of those who voted against Peter MacKay are not suddenly all going to jump up and vote Green - especially in this riding. If anything, having her parachute into the riding solely for the purpose of trying to knock out Peter MacKay will A) split the left wing vote three ways and B) drive angry centrist voters into his arms. Voter mobility in Atlantic Canada is pretty much non-existent, except when you do something to get them angry. This would do the trick.

Posted by: Frank Cybulski at March 19, 2007 01:13 PM

---

@ Frank,

I agree, normally they wouldn't all jump up and vote for her... unless of course the media hypes up the whole thing and it turns into a crazy movement of protest against the Conservatives.

Posted by: langmann at March 19, 2007 02:18 PM

---

Surely you jest! Elizabeth May trying to raise her profile? Wanting to attract more publicity? Nah!

She's already practically a weekly guest on two of my local radio stations. She's the new Sybil of Homeric proportions.

As I'm pecking at my keyboard, there we go - they're talking about her on the radio!

Posted by: Gabby in QC at March 19, 2007 02:37 PM

---

two effects. Raises the profile of the greens though the media building up the (lmao) battle

And the other: Ensures a new green party leader for the next election.

May is going into a battle that conventional wisdom says is unwinable. If she can pull enough votes from the left (green support is environmental adn she is left wing) to finish 3rd (she only has to make-up 10,000 votes to get 3rd). That might save her job, or if she can suscessfully spin to the party how she raised the profile.

If she gets less than 5000 votes... people laugh at her. The party will question her wisdom in running in an unwinnable riding. (Which would raise the greens profile more? getting a seat or a 4 week race???)

Atleast she will spare herself the embarrassment of losing in a riding she might have a chance in.

Posted by: Barcs at March 19, 2007 03:04 PM

---

Actually, my hunch is May is running to lose. If another Green gets voted in May merges with the Liberal's and gets a plum job with the party. As it stands she would look assinine to merge the 2 parties or become a Liberal so soon after being elected Green leader.

As for media coverage, i hope she gets it, including debating Mackay. Anyone know her position on anything other than the enviroment?

Posted by: paulsstuff at March 19, 2007 03:26 PM

---

I reckon it's all bout the $1.75/voter. May runs a high profile campaign, the "progressives" throughout Canada watch her smack around MacKay with the help of a pliant MSM, and her performance would result in many $six figures from Elections Canuckistan for her performance. Builds a nice war chest for the next election.

Posted by: at March 19, 2007 04:51 PM

---

I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that May is a dual citizen of Canada and the USA,lives in Ottawa and has recently admitted to having conversations about the riding with that other dual citizen party leader Dion.

Posted by: bocanut at March 19, 2007 06:43 PM

---

She may lose her US citizenship if she takes a "policy level position" since the presumption that someone who takes another citizenship intends to keep US citizenship does not apply to such a person and intent must be investigated.

"With respect to loss of nationality, 349(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, is the applicable section of law. Pursuant to 349(a)(4), accepting, serving in, or performing duties of in a foreign government is a potentially expatriating act. In order to come within the Act, the person must either be a national of that country or take an oath of allegiance in connection with the position. Thus, the threshold question is whether the person's actions fall within the scope of this provision. Information used to make this determination may include official confirmation from the foreign government about the person's nationality, and whether an oath of allegiance is required.

In addition, the prefatory language of section 349 requires that expatriating act be performed voluntarily and "with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality." Thus, if it is determined that the person's action falls within the purview of 349(a)(4) INA, an adjudication of the person's intent must be made."

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_779.html

Posted by: dubya dubya at March 19, 2007 07:40 PM

---

Oh yes and it also says in that document that:

"(Service in a country's legislative body is considered by the Department to be a policy level position.)

An Attorney General's opinion of 1969 states that service in an important foreign political position constitutes highly persuasive evidence of intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. In some cases, it would appear that holding a foreign office may be incompatible with maintaining U.S. citizenship (e.g. if the position necessarily entails immunity from U.S. law)."

Posted by: dubya dubya at March 19, 2007 08:56 PM

---

She was interviewed on CPAC regarding the budget today...she said Dion had phoned her congratulating her on her decision to run in Central Nova, and that she was to have a meeting with him this upcoming week, and yes...the subject had come up of not running a Lib in that riding and they would be discussing the issue.
Why does Belinda and skeletons in the closet come to my mind here?

Posted by: bks at March 19, 2007 10:08 PM

---

There are a couple other dimensions at play here: by running against the Foreign Affairs Minister, May gets a platform for her Party's stance on international affairs. She desparately wants to pretend that the Green Party is more than a single-issue protest vote in favour of the Environment.

But by displaying a multi-plank platform, she will also expose the political inconsistencies of the Greens and likely place them squarely to the left of the NDP. If her party's policies are clearly revealed, they are likely to lose votes. If she manages to keep them hidden, she is unlikely to gain votes.

For all that, I haven't found any evidence of such depth of political understanding among the supporters of the Green Party to whom I have spoken directly.

Posted by: Paul O at March 19, 2007 11:46 PM

---

Elizabeth who?

Posted by: Ace at March 20, 2007 07:18 AM

---

Election, what election?????

Posted by: David P at March 20, 2007 02:43 PM

---

I wonder if the grassroots of the Green Party feel betrayed. It seems May is more of a Liberal. She seems unwilling to criticize them on their failures on the environment. In fact, she goes out of her way to defend them.

While Layton attacks Conservative environment policy, he doesn't let the Liberals off the hook, citing their poor record.

May, on the other hand, goes out of her way to defend the Liberals, using mistruths to do so.

Saw her interviewed in a scrum about 6 weeks ago and she defended the Liberals saying that the Conservatives, and the CA and Reform Party before them obstructed the Liberals on making progress on the environment.

The Liberals had natural power for 12 of their 13 years in power.

No reporter challenged May's assertion.

Posted by: Arlene at March 21, 2007 01:34 PM

---

hello

Posted by: monyka@gmail.com at May 6, 2007 07:02 AM

---