Hudak: 5606 votes
Klees: 4644 votes

Older results
Elliott 2584
Hudak 3837
Klees 3049
99/107

Older results
Elliott 2402
Hudak 3575
Klees 2926
93/107

Older results
Elliott 2116
Hudak 3088
Klees 2513
81/107

Older results
Elliott 1860
Hudak 2782
Klees 2176

72/107

Older results
Elliott: 1503
Hudak 2306
Klees 1807

60/107 ridings

First ballot results
Elliott 2729
Hillier 1014
Hudak 3512
Klees 3094
107/107
Total votes 10348

Older results

Elliott 2243
Hillier 944
Hudak 2995
Klees 2736
91/107

Elliott 1971
Hillier 863
Hudak 2561
Klees 2338
79/107

Elliott 1552
Hillier 664
Hudak 2054
Klees 1863
63/107

Elliott 1304
Hillier 541
Hudak 1604
Klees 1507
51/107

Elliott: 933
Hillier: 375
Hudak: 1099
Klees: 950
With 35/107 ridings reporting

I’m off to go and find something interesting to report back here, but in the meantime check out what Calgary Grit describes as the worst campaign song in Canadian political history.  Often, supporters come out with music for political campaigns, and this particular video is a bit different.  It’s by a young BC based artist and was sponsored by someone on behalf of the Klees campaign.  Here it is.

Now that you’ve listened to the magic, I spent five minutes making it more interesting (I thought the rhythm sounded familiar).  We’ve seen Hudak vs. Klees and Klees vs. Hudak.  Here’s Klees vs. Moby – the remix:

Yikes, I wouldn’t even be able to DJ a wedding… bar mitzvah… funeral! Anyway, let’s hope I find something more interesting to report here soon.  Maybe I’ll bump into Perez Hudak?

Frank Klees’ campaign has focused upon signing up new Canadians and bringing increased diversity to the PC Party of Ontario. His campaign believes that his campaign was the target of this “dirty trick” type of politicking.

I’ve received the following letter from a source close to the Klees campaign. The letter is from party president Ken Zeise. It informs the Klees campaign that the police are now investigating the matter.

It was explained to me that two weeks ago, the Klees campaign conducted a voter ID poll and they argue that this was completely legal. All questions asked, they argue, were in the public domain. Questions were asked regarding the “faltering” Hudak campaign and second ballot support. It was argued that because the characterization of the campaign had been reported in mainstream media and on the blogs that this was a public perception poll and that questions were asked legitimately.

The main complaint from the Klees campaign is that the Hudak campaign strategically held their complaint until the day of the TVO debate, a forum where candidates could truly interact and go back and forth. Steve Paikin was the host of the debate. Klees’ campaign complains that the Hudak campaign made their complaint on this day in an attempt to de-legitimize their campaign. They suggest that the post-debate scrum of Klees regarding the “push poll” was evidence to this.

The Klees campaign characterizes the McCreadie letter as “arrogant”, “pious” a “smear” and “not true”. The Klees campaign argued that while McCreadie and the Hudak campaign initiated the complaint, McCreadie himself was 45 minutes late to the three hour meeting to decide the complaint, which he ultimately lost. Further, the Klees campaign accuses the Hudak campaign of salting the earth, “what is this, winning at all costs?” Further, it was explained that all candidates want party unity and that it is “arrogant” for the Hudak campaign to think that only they hold that card.

Ouch.

I imagine that this is not the final barrage; we’ll be here all day, folks. But let’s try to work on this “unity” thing sooner rather than later, k?

Hi Stephen:

I had the opportunity to read your posting. We thought it would be important that your readers understand a few facts regarding these calls.

First, the Klees Campaign admitted to the Party during the hearing that it authorized the offending script, which we maintain is a push poll.

Second, the Klees Campaign also admitted to the Party that it retained Logit Group to do a blind poll, so that the true source of the calls would be concealed from Party members.

Third, the Klees Campaign admitted to the Party that Logit Group made hundreds of these calls to Tim Hudak supporters across the province.

The Klees Campaign defended these calls as “research”, although push polls appear to violate CRTC telemarketing guidelines and contravene legitimate market research standards.

Given that the Klees Campaign admitted to making these calls, we are obviously disappointed that the Party chose not to punish the Klees Campaign for conducting this negative push poll.

But we are pleased that, because of our investigation, Party members who complained about this inappropriate push poll can cast their vote knowing that the Klees Campaign was responsible for it.

We also thank the Party for issuing a new guideline requiring all calling firms to reveal which campaign retained them when calling the Party membership. This increased level of transparency is important to Party members. It will also prevent the Klees Campaign from conducting other divisive push polls for the rest of this leadership race.

Our campaign recognizes that unifying and rebuilding our great Party will be a key task for our new Leader. This principle has governed our campaign throughout this leadership race, and will continue to do so as we enter this important final week.

I appreciate the opportunity to share this additional information with your readers so they can come to their own conclusions.

Blair McCreadie
Co-Chair, Tim Hudak Leadership Campaign

Here is the Klees release:

The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has completed an internal hearing by the Rules and Appeals committee, with all PC leadership campaigns invited, concerning the complaint raised by the Tim Hudak Campaign against the Frank Klees Campaign.

The Party has concluded the following: “Upon hearing the submissions and evidence of the Tim Hudak Campaign and the Frank Klees Campaign, the Board determined the complaint was without merit.”

“The Hudak Campaign broke their much-touted 11th Commandment by falsely accusing the Klees Campaign of breaking campaign rules,” explained John Capobianco, Klees Campaign Chair. “I am pleased that the PC Party of Ontario, in its deliberations, came to the right decision – that the complaint launch by the Tim Hudak Campaign was without merit.”

To read the decision in full, click here: http://ontariopc.com/~/media/7C856423D85B4397A711FE522826B594.ashx

1. What is the main issue that you will vote on in this leadership race?
2. Who will be your first choice for party leader?
3. Who will be your second choice?
4. Tim Hudak said he was the frontrunner, promising an easy win in the shortest leadership race ever, but his campaign has faltered. Why do you think this happened?
5. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign has faltered because he promised to sell the most memberships, but came in third place?
6. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign faltered because of his adoption of a divisive policy on Human Rights Commissions?
7. Do you agree or disagree that Tim Hudak’s campaign has faltered because it is relying on the support of Mike Harris, who may be liked by party members but who will hurt our party in the general election?
8. Keeping in mind the Hudak campaign’s poor performance, are you now more or less likely to change your second ballot support?

The Hudak campaign made the following submission to the rules committee of the PC Party:

And the PC Party responded by saying that the complaint is without merit:

I received the call from “Dominion Research” and remember noting the call came from “416-000-0000″. Whoever was behind the call, they may have broken the rules of the leadership race and by doing so they unfairly smeared Tim Hudak. Yet, if this complaint is without merit as the party stated, the Hudak campaign may have broken their own 11th commandment by unloading this scandal entirely on the Klees campaign so close to the leadership vote. Has the Hudak campaign done their homework or is the party right to dismiss their claims?

UPDATE: Hudak campaign responds

The Elliott campaign,

Dear, Christine, Janet, Michael and Tom:

It has recently been brought to my attention that the Party intends to restrict journalists from recording video or audio of the upcoming debates.

On behalf of the Christine Elliott Campaign, I would like to express my sincere disappointment with this decision. It is not in the best interests of the public or the P.C. Party of Ontario to impede journalists from carrying out their responsibilities. We ought to be showcasing the great ideas and individuals in this contest.

There are several problems with this decision. For one, why would we want to deny party members who can’t attend the debates from getting information through their local media outlet? Additionally, by restricting video and audio coverage of these debates we are missing the opportunity to promote the P.C. Party, our values and our principles.

I would ask you to seriously reconsider your position on this as I believe that it will be detrimental, not only to the leadership campaign, but to the P.C. Party overall. I don’t believe this is the message we want to be sending to our friends in the media or to the public at large.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Dan Miles
Communications Co-Chair
Christine Elliott Campaign

and the Hudak campaign,

From: Lesley Harmer
Sent: Wed 5/20/2009 5:14 PM
To: RBenzie@thestar.ca; John.McGrath@cbc.ca; antonella.artuso@sunmedia.ca; KHowlett@globeandmail.com; SMallen@GlobalTV.Com; rrath@chchnews.ca; rrath@chtv.ca
Cc: Jeremy Adams; Mike Low
Subject: Ontario PC Party London Debate

Please note, it came to our attention this morning that the party would not allow recording devices during the debate tomorrow. We do not support this decision. Our official agent is conveying that to the PC party of Ontario. We believe the media should have open access to the debates.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Lesley

Lesley Harmer
Tim Hudak Campaign

Finally, I’ve heard that the party will go ahead and allow reporters to use recording devices during the debate.

UPDATE: This is confirmed. Here is the media advisory from the party.

From: Wilson, Michael J.
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:34 AM
To: Wilson, Michael J. [PCPO]
Subject: Media Advisory: Ontario PC Party London Debate * Update

**Important notice to the media, revised debate protocol
Camera and recording equipment allowed

ONTARIO PC LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES KICK-OFF DEBATES IN LONDON

Toronto, ON- Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Leadership Candidates will be available to speak to the media following the first in a series of provincial debates.

Date:
Thursday, May 21, 2009

Time:
6:00 p.m.: Media registration
7:30 p.m.: Debate begins

10 minutes following the end of the Debate: Candidate media availability

Location:
University of Western Ontario
Arthur & Sonia Labatt Health Sciences Building
Room 40
Huron Drive
N6A 5B9

Candidate Media Availability to follow in HSB 9 (Room Location)

Note: Only accredited media and those holding debate tickets will be permitted to attend the event.

Debate speaking order will be as follows:

Opening Remarks:
1. Randy Hillier
2. Christine Elliott
3. Frank Klees
4. Tim Hudak

Closing Remarks:
1. Frank Klees
2. Tim Hudak
3. Randy Hillier
4. Christine Elliott

Media Availability order will be as follows: (5 minutes each)
1. Randy Hillier
2. Christine Elliott
3. Tim Hudak
4. Frank Klees

-30-