*deep breath* I just finished defending Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party in the comments section of the news of the PSE announcement at CTV.ca. I have long been a supporter of spending in this area; I've benefited from student loan and bursary programs (wouldn't mind making that debt load disappear, though), so today's announcement by Dion is one that strikes a chord with me and will hopefully provide an impetus for the other parties to announce their plans for post-secondary education. The incredible costs of tuition in this country are making it very difficult for the younger generation (and their parents/families) to find the resources to afford a university or college education. The interest rate on the loans, while significantly lower than any of the major credit cards, are substantial enough that I still see a lot of the money I pay on a monthly basis being applied to that interest instead of the principal balance. Others, who have much higher loans than I, are feeling a crush when it comes time to pay these loans back, especially when they're still looking for work in their chosen field. The Liberals have long been aware of this and been leaders in making PSE more affordable, and today's announcement is the first of its kind in this campaign.
I can't sit here and say that this turns the tide and I hope that Dion gets elected so that he can implement this plan. It's a good plank, one that I supported fully when I was a member of the Liberal Party and one I will always support, but there's still too many other problems with him and his party right now for me to endorse them.
Showing posts with label Dion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dion. Show all posts
17 September 2008
09 September 2008
Election 2008: Day 3
We have our first major party candidate nominated in Halifax! The NDP has selected Megan Leslie to succeed Alexa McDonough. Halifax is sort of like Kelowna in that whomever is nominated for the NDP (in Kelowna's case it's the Tories) is pretty much a lock to go to Ottawa. Too many students out here that follow Winston Churchill's dictum, "If you're not a socialist when you're 20 you have no heart; if you're not a conservative when you're 40 you have no brain." So there's a lot of heart here in Halifax. I think it would have been great if the second-place candidate took the nod, though. Her name: Alexis MacDonald. I wonder how many people wouldn't notice that it's not Alexa anymore.
The Conservatives have also put forward a nominee, named Rosamond Luke. No details were given in the Chronicle-Herald story (big surprise) and the Conservative website itself is not yet updated, only noting "Candidate coming soon" as of this morning. A Google search reveals, however, that she is "the Founder and Executive Director of AWEDA – All Women’s Empowerment and Development Association. AWEDA is an NGO dedicated to the social and economic empowerment of immigrant and refugee women in Nova Scotia. Born and raised in Freetown, Sierra Leone to entrepreneur parents, Rosamond arrived in Halifax, Nova Scotia on October 30, 1982, for what was initially intended to be a twelve-month stay. She eventually settled here and raised a family of three children."
The Liberals have yet to announce a candidate.
Nationally, still not a defining issue. I think that the longer this goes on, the more it bodes well for the Conservatives. Many Canadians have expressed their confidence in Stephen Harper's leadership, so unless the Liberals are able to define what this election is about, there will be little need to veer from the status quo.
The Conservatives have also put forward a nominee, named Rosamond Luke. No details were given in the Chronicle-Herald story (big surprise) and the Conservative website itself is not yet updated, only noting "Candidate coming soon" as of this morning. A Google search reveals, however, that she is "the Founder and Executive Director of AWEDA – All Women’s Empowerment and Development Association. AWEDA is an NGO dedicated to the social and economic empowerment of immigrant and refugee women in Nova Scotia. Born and raised in Freetown, Sierra Leone to entrepreneur parents, Rosamond arrived in Halifax, Nova Scotia on October 30, 1982, for what was initially intended to be a twelve-month stay. She eventually settled here and raised a family of three children."
The Liberals have yet to announce a candidate.
Nationally, still not a defining issue. I think that the longer this goes on, the more it bodes well for the Conservatives. Many Canadians have expressed their confidence in Stephen Harper's leadership, so unless the Liberals are able to define what this election is about, there will be little need to veer from the status quo.
08 September 2008
Election 2008: Day 2
Still not a candidate to be seen in Halifax. I did, however, have a city councillor come by my door yesterday; they must feel bad that they're now the second-place election of October 2008.
Hats off to the Greens for throwing money down a black hole as penance for their carbon emissions during the election. It's a special kind of self-loathing to want to tax yourself, and luckily they'll forever be unable to inflict the same wallet-thrashing on the people of Canada.
We're still looking for a major theme or central issue to this election. Leadership is a word that has often come up in discussions. But there's so much more to good governance than the leader of whatever party is elected. The Liberals have portrayed Stephen Harper as a bully who muzzles his own Cabinet ministers and snuffs all internal dissent, which they say is bad leadership. The Conservatives have much more successfully shown Dion to be an ineffectual leader, replaying over and over the clip in which Dion says, "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?" Obviously, after the dithering of the previous Liberal leader, the Tories feel the current Liberals will offer little better as evidence of leadership. And somewhere in all of this, Jack Layton is saying they're both bad and only his type of leadership and strength is what's good for Canada. Strangely absent from this "leadership" talk is the discussion of actual priorities and policies for Canada as we move forward.
Hats off to the Greens for throwing money down a black hole as penance for their carbon emissions during the election. It's a special kind of self-loathing to want to tax yourself, and luckily they'll forever be unable to inflict the same wallet-thrashing on the people of Canada.
We're still looking for a major theme or central issue to this election. Leadership is a word that has often come up in discussions. But there's so much more to good governance than the leader of whatever party is elected. The Liberals have portrayed Stephen Harper as a bully who muzzles his own Cabinet ministers and snuffs all internal dissent, which they say is bad leadership. The Conservatives have much more successfully shown Dion to be an ineffectual leader, replaying over and over the clip in which Dion says, "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?" Obviously, after the dithering of the previous Liberal leader, the Tories feel the current Liberals will offer little better as evidence of leadership. And somewhere in all of this, Jack Layton is saying they're both bad and only his type of leadership and strength is what's good for Canada. Strangely absent from this "leadership" talk is the discussion of actual priorities and policies for Canada as we move forward.
25 August 2008
Election Fever v.235
The Canadian media has long been obsessed with an election; this is not news to anybody that has turned on the TV at any time since about March 2006 (they gave the Conservatives something of a honeymoon after their January win). There have been daily suggestions that the opposition will topple the government or that the government--in defiance of its own professed desire to govern until the fixed election date in September 2009--will indeed manufacture its own demise to head to the polls in search of a majority against a weak-willed and indecisive Liberal leadership. Consequently, people have largely tuned out, burned out about election talk after numerous false threats and empty promises that we'd be heading to the polls at any time with our five-weeks notice. It's a sad state that people are sick of an election when the election has yet to actually take place; the only thing one can compare Canada's election fever to is the hockey world's never-ending wait for Mats Sundin to make a decision about his playing future. You can be sure that, in both cases, when the trigger is finally pulled and a concrete decision made, people will sigh a collective sigh of relief, say "it's about time that's over with," and finally be able to get on with their lives.
It is with all of this election impasse in mind that we turn to today's latest threat, this one coming from "senior Conservative sources." Supposedly we are now to believe that the Prime Minister is ready to go as early as September 5th, paving the way for a Thanksgiving election. You can insert your turkey jokes here. I'll begin with former Liberal "star candidate" Marc Garneau's proclamation that the Conservatives want an election now so that they can avoid talking about issues like the economy. Now, I realize that because once upon a time a Conservative Prime Minister said that an election is no time to talk about policy issues, therefore all Conservatives believe that an election is no time to talk about policy issues. But, come on, can we get serious for just a moment? Has Mr. Garneau not paid an ounce of attention to what's happening in the United States? The majority of airtime these days is devoted equally to how many houses John McCain owns and the economy! It's like 1992 all over again: it's the economy, stupid! If Mr. Garneau honestly believes that the economy won't come up during an election campaign, well, he's just another talking turkey.
Do I honestly think that there will be a Canadian election in 2008? No. I didn't think there would be one in the spring, summer, or autumn of 2007 when everybody in the media was banging that particular drum, nor was I eager to go for a winter or spring 2008 election. Here's the thing: the Liberals, the media, the Conservatives, the talking heads, just about anybody in the political class these days, has called the election wolf so many times that it's near-impossible to believe that this time they're actually serious about an election. What makes right now so different than June 2007? There's nothing that suggests the Conservatives or Liberals can score a majority, or that the result would be vastly different than the current status. So what would be the point? It all seems like much bluster and little real action. But this is to be expected, because when you're a turkey, nothing you say actually has to make sense.
It is with all of this election impasse in mind that we turn to today's latest threat, this one coming from "senior Conservative sources." Supposedly we are now to believe that the Prime Minister is ready to go as early as September 5th, paving the way for a Thanksgiving election. You can insert your turkey jokes here. I'll begin with former Liberal "star candidate" Marc Garneau's proclamation that the Conservatives want an election now so that they can avoid talking about issues like the economy. Now, I realize that because once upon a time a Conservative Prime Minister said that an election is no time to talk about policy issues, therefore all Conservatives believe that an election is no time to talk about policy issues. But, come on, can we get serious for just a moment? Has Mr. Garneau not paid an ounce of attention to what's happening in the United States? The majority of airtime these days is devoted equally to how many houses John McCain owns and the economy! It's like 1992 all over again: it's the economy, stupid! If Mr. Garneau honestly believes that the economy won't come up during an election campaign, well, he's just another talking turkey.
Do I honestly think that there will be a Canadian election in 2008? No. I didn't think there would be one in the spring, summer, or autumn of 2007 when everybody in the media was banging that particular drum, nor was I eager to go for a winter or spring 2008 election. Here's the thing: the Liberals, the media, the Conservatives, the talking heads, just about anybody in the political class these days, has called the election wolf so many times that it's near-impossible to believe that this time they're actually serious about an election. What makes right now so different than June 2007? There's nothing that suggests the Conservatives or Liberals can score a majority, or that the result would be vastly different than the current status. So what would be the point? It all seems like much bluster and little real action. But this is to be expected, because when you're a turkey, nothing you say actually has to make sense.
06 February 2008
Show Your Cards
Wow.
Hold onto your hats, because it's going to be a wild ride.
Harper has long said that Afghanistan is an issue over which he would be fully prepared to wage an election. It looks like that will be put to the test in the very near future. The future of the mission depends almost entirely upon what Stephane Dion's Liberal Party intends to do; the Bloc and the NDP have flat-out said that they'll vote against any extension. Will we see a repeat of the fiscal update? Will we see a major schism? Will the Liberals support their stated principles of humanitarian intervention? Stay tuned.
Hold onto your hats, because it's going to be a wild ride.
Harper has long said that Afghanistan is an issue over which he would be fully prepared to wage an election. It looks like that will be put to the test in the very near future. The future of the mission depends almost entirely upon what Stephane Dion's Liberal Party intends to do; the Bloc and the NDP have flat-out said that they'll vote against any extension. Will we see a repeat of the fiscal update? Will we see a major schism? Will the Liberals support their stated principles of humanitarian intervention? Stay tuned.
08 November 2007
Huh, Who Knew?
Last week I wrote this about Guy Bertrand, the separatist gadfly that attempted to smear Montreal Canadiens captain Saku Koivu for his limited French-speaking abilities:
"Hearing some low-life politician looking for his fifteen minutes of fame embodies what is wrong with the Canadian body politic today."
Turns out that M. Bertrand has already received much more than just fifteen minutes. I'm in the midst of reading Jean Chretien's memoirs, My Years as Prime Minister, during which I've learned that Bertrand is the person responsible for the Government of Canada sending a series of questions to the Supreme Court of Canada in what came to be known as the Quebec Secession Reference. Bertrand was of the belief that Quebec could unilaterally declare its independence from Canada following a 50% plus one referendum vote, no matter how muddy the question, and he pressed this viewpiont in public. All of this resulted in the Clarity Act, perhaps the finest moment of Stephane Dion's political career, which put many nails in the coffin of the separatist movement in Canada. But this little bit of linkage does demonstrate just how small a world it is, and how easy it is for any crankpot to make himself famous...twice.
"Hearing some low-life politician looking for his fifteen minutes of fame embodies what is wrong with the Canadian body politic today."
Turns out that M. Bertrand has already received much more than just fifteen minutes. I'm in the midst of reading Jean Chretien's memoirs, My Years as Prime Minister, during which I've learned that Bertrand is the person responsible for the Government of Canada sending a series of questions to the Supreme Court of Canada in what came to be known as the Quebec Secession Reference. Bertrand was of the belief that Quebec could unilaterally declare its independence from Canada following a 50% plus one referendum vote, no matter how muddy the question, and he pressed this viewpiont in public. All of this resulted in the Clarity Act, perhaps the finest moment of Stephane Dion's political career, which put many nails in the coffin of the separatist movement in Canada. But this little bit of linkage does demonstrate just how small a world it is, and how easy it is for any crankpot to make himself famous...twice.
06 November 2007
Get Yer Torches! We're Goin' Mulroney Huntin'!
Brian Mulroney's name has been in the news quite a lot lately. First the book, in which the former PM slags the deceased Pierre Trudeau somewhat harshly, which I'm guessing only five people have gotten to due to the size of the memoir. Now, though, is something a little more nefarious, and it's got the Liberals' backs up in a big way. They want an inquiry into whether or not Mulroney illicitly accepted $300,000 (no small chunk of change) from a German businessman whose name is really not relevant and 99.9% unknown outside the chattering classes. Canadians hate Brian Mulroney, not only dyed-red-in-the-wool Liberals but many Canadians at large. My favourite pub & eatery in Kelowna has a framed photo of him, tilted sideways, covered in spitballs. I don't know of a single family member that has much good to say about him. So trying to tar Brian Mulroney--15 years after he left office--is something fun and cathartic for the Liberals, who, let's face it, can use some fun these days.
Here's the problem I have with the whole thing: it's not relevant to the Canadian national interest. Not one little bit. Kinsella may want to cast Harper in a negative light for not being interested in pursuing the Liberals' request, nay, demand, for a full and thorough investigation into the matter, but he's talking into an echo chamber on that one. I don't too often disagree with W.K., but I just don't see the point in spending millions of dollars on lawyers to find out if the guy before the last guy's predecessor at 24 Sussex Drive lined his pockets for a couple hundred thousand dollars. It's greasy, it's slimy, and it sure does make Mulroney look bad, but there's really nothing for anybody in the current political environment to either gain or lose by having an inquiry. Harper's team may look at Mulroney as something of an intellectual/ideological/strategic godfather, but it's not as if Harper's got any intention of appointing him to the Senate or giving him a job on the taxpayer dime. The Liberals may get to feel good that Mulroney is getting dragged through the mud again, but it opens up the door to investigations into Shawinigate and Martin's CSL operations--if it's good for the goose... And, of course, Layton will get to gadfly around a bunch but it's not like he'll suddenly shoot up five points in the national polls. Any gains would be surface-level and fleeting, while the millions spent pursuing the inquiry would be lost to much more important and pressing programs. They could pump the money back into Status of Women Canada instead, that'd be swell.
Going back to the Liberals, I'm really astonished that they're pressing this as hard as they are. There's any number of salient issues they could target to rebuild their fortunes and attempt to knock Harper off stride. For example, there's a new poll which suggests that Canadians still lack a global conscience--er, I mean, don't want to follow George Bush's hard-right neo-conservative search and destroy so-called war on terrorism agenda--and want to get out of Afghanistan before the government's suggested 2011 withdrawal timetable. I know why it's a mission worth supporting and pursuing to a successful conclusion, but many Canadians still don't and many can't even point Afghanistan on a map. That's still fertile territory for any of the parties to seize upon and frame in a national interest perspective. Make up something tangible about peacekeeping and why we should be somewhere else instead and you may receive a boost in the polls. There's still no real social agenda blueprint put in place by the Conservatives other than some tax credits; after waking up one morning and collectively deciding that Canada must have a national daycare program, they've been pretty quiet about that lately. Oil is getting close to $100 a barrel. Given the Liberal leader's supposed penchant for the environment and competitive sustainability, where is he on the charge to finding fossil fuel alternatives? Where's the big policy blueprint that makes Canada an innovator in eco-friendly fuels and energy?
I know that it's not easy to make priorities, but seeing the Liberals flailing in an effort to put Brian freakin' Mulroney back in the spotlight instead of real issues affecting Canadian interests and, dare I say, values, is sad to see. Rather than giving Canadians an idea of where they want to take us, the Liberals are trying to re-visit the late 20th century. Harper may not be big on the vision thing but at least his ship has a setting (gotta love the North Star) that may take us into a better future.
Here's the problem I have with the whole thing: it's not relevant to the Canadian national interest. Not one little bit. Kinsella may want to cast Harper in a negative light for not being interested in pursuing the Liberals' request, nay, demand, for a full and thorough investigation into the matter, but he's talking into an echo chamber on that one. I don't too often disagree with W.K., but I just don't see the point in spending millions of dollars on lawyers to find out if the guy before the last guy's predecessor at 24 Sussex Drive lined his pockets for a couple hundred thousand dollars. It's greasy, it's slimy, and it sure does make Mulroney look bad, but there's really nothing for anybody in the current political environment to either gain or lose by having an inquiry. Harper's team may look at Mulroney as something of an intellectual/ideological/strategic godfather, but it's not as if Harper's got any intention of appointing him to the Senate or giving him a job on the taxpayer dime. The Liberals may get to feel good that Mulroney is getting dragged through the mud again, but it opens up the door to investigations into Shawinigate and Martin's CSL operations--if it's good for the goose... And, of course, Layton will get to gadfly around a bunch but it's not like he'll suddenly shoot up five points in the national polls. Any gains would be surface-level and fleeting, while the millions spent pursuing the inquiry would be lost to much more important and pressing programs. They could pump the money back into Status of Women Canada instead, that'd be swell.
Going back to the Liberals, I'm really astonished that they're pressing this as hard as they are. There's any number of salient issues they could target to rebuild their fortunes and attempt to knock Harper off stride. For example, there's a new poll which suggests that Canadians still lack a global conscience--er, I mean, don't want to follow George Bush's hard-right neo-conservative search and destroy so-called war on terrorism agenda--and want to get out of Afghanistan before the government's suggested 2011 withdrawal timetable. I know why it's a mission worth supporting and pursuing to a successful conclusion, but many Canadians still don't and many can't even point Afghanistan on a map. That's still fertile territory for any of the parties to seize upon and frame in a national interest perspective. Make up something tangible about peacekeeping and why we should be somewhere else instead and you may receive a boost in the polls. There's still no real social agenda blueprint put in place by the Conservatives other than some tax credits; after waking up one morning and collectively deciding that Canada must have a national daycare program, they've been pretty quiet about that lately. Oil is getting close to $100 a barrel. Given the Liberal leader's supposed penchant for the environment and competitive sustainability, where is he on the charge to finding fossil fuel alternatives? Where's the big policy blueprint that makes Canada an innovator in eco-friendly fuels and energy?
I know that it's not easy to make priorities, but seeing the Liberals flailing in an effort to put Brian freakin' Mulroney back in the spotlight instead of real issues affecting Canadian interests and, dare I say, values, is sad to see. Rather than giving Canadians an idea of where they want to take us, the Liberals are trying to re-visit the late 20th century. Harper may not be big on the vision thing but at least his ship has a setting (gotta love the North Star) that may take us into a better future.
24 October 2007
New Tory Strategy: Every Bill is the Speech From the Throne
Given that the Official Opposition has abdicated its responsibility to Parliament, Harper may as well really ramp it up and make every government bill a matter of confidence. Dion will have everybody show up but stay seating and thereby give him a free pass. He'll get the omnibus (and horribly named) crime bill passed easily, the vote on the fall mini-budget/economic update will go by without any fanfare, and if Harper wants to pass a resolution that refers to the Liberal Party as "weenies," well, that'll probably end up passing with unanimous consent and 95 abstentions.
Harper has maneuvered the Liberals to the brink of irrelevancy with his strategy to this point. He'll be able to mock them for probably the rest of this session of Parliament, saying that the Opposition has no stance on any of the government's five policy points and passing pretty much all of it with ease. After all, if one of those points is so odious to the Liberals when it comes to a vote, how can they justify voting against it in December or January or February when they sat on their butts when the government declared its intentions in October? Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe now command more presence in the House of Commons because they've made their respective party's position known, loud and clear. They all stood up to be counted while the men and women in red collectively behaved like Prime Minister Paul Martin: so consumed with how to appear that they're impotent to act.
From this point until the middle of 2008, every bill introduced by the Government is going to be connected to the Speech From the Throne in some way. Since the Tories got parliamentary approval for their blueprint, I can imagine that, in the name of consistency, the implementation of that blueprint shall receive similar approval. Since the main opposition party has taken itself out of the equation, Harper now has a de facto majority, which will make the coming months all the more interesting. Or, if you're a Liberal supporter, infuriating and contemplating why you voted for that green scarf-wearing weenie in the first place.
Harper has maneuvered the Liberals to the brink of irrelevancy with his strategy to this point. He'll be able to mock them for probably the rest of this session of Parliament, saying that the Opposition has no stance on any of the government's five policy points and passing pretty much all of it with ease. After all, if one of those points is so odious to the Liberals when it comes to a vote, how can they justify voting against it in December or January or February when they sat on their butts when the government declared its intentions in October? Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe now command more presence in the House of Commons because they've made their respective party's position known, loud and clear. They all stood up to be counted while the men and women in red collectively behaved like Prime Minister Paul Martin: so consumed with how to appear that they're impotent to act.
From this point until the middle of 2008, every bill introduced by the Government is going to be connected to the Speech From the Throne in some way. Since the Tories got parliamentary approval for their blueprint, I can imagine that, in the name of consistency, the implementation of that blueprint shall receive similar approval. Since the main opposition party has taken itself out of the equation, Harper now has a de facto majority, which will make the coming months all the more interesting. Or, if you're a Liberal supporter, infuriating and contemplating why you voted for that green scarf-wearing weenie in the first place.
17 October 2007
Out of Touch...
The headlines today were all screaming "Election Blueprint" in reference to last night's Speech From the Throne and the establishment of the Government's agenda for the coming months. Both the Globe and Mail and the Halifax Chronicle-Herald portrayed the Speech as something upon which the Conservatives would rest their hopes in an election campaign. Let's face it, elections are sexy. They're full of intriguing storylines, angles, twists, plot devices, and they always have a thrilling conclusion in which one party rises supreme above all others. So desperate for another election campaign are they that they ignore reality.
I have maintained for a long time now that there will be no election in 2007. I'm on the verge of updating that forecast to suggest that there may not even be one in 2008. The opposition parties can snipe and bray all they want, they will ultimately back down. The Liberal Party of Canada has no chance of winning an election at this time. They haven't got the money, they haven't got the organization, they haven't got the people, and they don't have the policy. It has been well over two years since the last Liberal Policy Convention, which is odd given that there's something in the party constitution which states that policy conventions are to be biennial. They have been rudderless since Paul Martin ran out of good ideas sometime in September 2005. They've had ideas, but they have certainly not been good: banning the notwithstanding clause, anyone? They've had ideas, but they haven't translated them into policy. Firing off the name of your favourite city in Japan isn't a policy, it's not a blueprint, it's a word. In the absence of any semblance of preparedness for a six-week campaign against a well-oiled and well-financed Conservative machine, there is simply no way that Dion would commit political hari-kari and further fan the flames of the party's self-immolation by calling for an election.
And yet the media still insists that an election is imminent. It is no wonder that they are regarded as out of touch.
Speaking of, M. Duceppe is having a hell of a time trying to get out his speech. It's turning into a blathering rant without any sense of direction. I can't believe they're actually semi-serious about their intention to oppose the Throne Speech and therefore be angling for an election.
I have maintained for a long time now that there will be no election in 2007. I'm on the verge of updating that forecast to suggest that there may not even be one in 2008. The opposition parties can snipe and bray all they want, they will ultimately back down. The Liberal Party of Canada has no chance of winning an election at this time. They haven't got the money, they haven't got the organization, they haven't got the people, and they don't have the policy. It has been well over two years since the last Liberal Policy Convention, which is odd given that there's something in the party constitution which states that policy conventions are to be biennial. They have been rudderless since Paul Martin ran out of good ideas sometime in September 2005. They've had ideas, but they have certainly not been good: banning the notwithstanding clause, anyone? They've had ideas, but they haven't translated them into policy. Firing off the name of your favourite city in Japan isn't a policy, it's not a blueprint, it's a word. In the absence of any semblance of preparedness for a six-week campaign against a well-oiled and well-financed Conservative machine, there is simply no way that Dion would commit political hari-kari and further fan the flames of the party's self-immolation by calling for an election.
And yet the media still insists that an election is imminent. It is no wonder that they are regarded as out of touch.
Speaking of, M. Duceppe is having a hell of a time trying to get out his speech. It's turning into a blathering rant without any sense of direction. I can't believe they're actually semi-serious about their intention to oppose the Throne Speech and therefore be angling for an election.
04 October 2007
On Team Captains
This morning, given the fun events going on in both politics and the NHL, I have come to notice two distinctions between the captain of the Montreal Canadiens and the captain of the federal Liberal Party:
1. One doesn't speak French.
2. The other one is not a leader.
I'll leave it to my faithful readers to guess which is which.
1. One doesn't speak French.
2. The other one is not a leader.
I'll leave it to my faithful readers to guess which is which.
23 September 2007
I Don't Need Your Civil War
It isn't often that I feel motivated to comment on the status of my former political party. However, the last week has been absolutely disastrous for the Liberals, and it would be remiss of me to not comment on it.
The situation is now being described as a civil war by none other than Sheila Copps. I had the opportunity to meet Miss Copps in 2003 and I very nearly ended up supporting her for the Liberal leadership that year. I bring this up because it is evidence that I respect her opinion and her insights. There were a couple of policy disagreements between us that ultimtaely led in me backing the greatest footnote in Canadian political history, but that in no way limits my respect for her. When she says that the old rivalries are resurfacing with new faces, I believe her. She knows many more people in higher places than I ever did in the Party, so her words should be taken seriously.
So it is the case that in September 2007 the Liberal Party of Canada is still engaged in the same internecine struggles that were damaging it in the period of 2002-2004. Rumours abound of plots to overthrow Stephane Dion's leadership, many of those plots focusing on Michael Ignatieff, but some also fingerpointing at Bob Rae. It is not entirely surprising that the impetus for all of this is a poor performance in 3 Quebec by-elections. Dion is a Quebec man, and it was believed that his long experience with the Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio and his self-proclaimed championing of a cause important to many Quebeckers--the environment--would help rebound sagging fortunes in the province. It turns out that the opposite has proven true. Dion hasn't established his credibility on the environmental file, having been criticized by former Cabinet colleagues who noted his lackadaisacal attitude when he was Environment Minister, and it turns out that many people in Quebec don't really appreciate his handling of Quebec-Ottawa relations. Plus he had a terrible organizational approach to the three elections, losing a long-standing Liberal stronghold and garnering a popular vote in the teens over the 3 ridings.
Cue the plotting. Ignatieff came out of the Montreal Convention as the runner-up to Dion. He was unable to grow his support from his initial 30% range on the first ballot to win the leadership, and I personally doubt that he'll be willing to stick around in Canadian politics as an opposition party critic for a long time when he knows that he could go back to any university and be the head of its political science department. Those hallways are less cutthroat than politics--Canadian and/or Liberal--and I would not be surprised if he regularly hears offers from institutions looking to add his formidable talents to their university. So it's either aim for coup or go back to academia for him. By all accounts, it seems he's going to try the coup first.
However, all of this neglects to look at the biggest problem the Liberal Party faces today. It is not that it's the same cast of stale characters or even the lack of a serious policy platform. It is criminal that they haven't held a policy convention since February 2005, that they don't articulate a consistent set of policies that liberals can rally around, sure. The biggest problem with the Liberal Party today is that it is called the Liberal Party. The brand is broken, toxic even. Back when Paul Martin became the party leader, the membership ranks boasted over half a million. Today it is a fraction of that. I don't know the numbers, but there are no pronouncements of mega-majorities or standing-proud local organizations looking to sign up every human soul in sight (living or dead, eh Joe Volpe?), so it is safe to assume that people have tuned out the Liberals. The absence of a message helps, but the lingering hostility over sponsorship, the fighting, the Martinites, and so much more takes precedence. Back in 2003 there was some hope for Liberals to make breakthroughs in areas that they had been shut out of since the days of Trudeau. Those are long gone, and they're now on the defensive even in bastions like Toronto and Montreal. Announce that you're a Liberal in some places and people may hiss and bear pitchforks.
What can they do? Rebuild, top to bottom. Make concrete steps to differentiate themselves from the Liberal brand of the recent past. Transforming one's image is difficult but it can be done--look at Stephen, formerly "Scary," Harper and his continued success as Prime Minister. Drop the arrogance, drop the "blame the voters" mentality, don't accuse people who disagree with you of lacking a "social conscience," don't formulate talking points around George W. Bush. Talk about your vision, talk about liberal values, compassion, humanity, a "role of pride and influence in the world," things that people can support. If they don't, these civil wars will be without end, and every leader will spend an inordinate amount of time looking over his shoulder to find out who is plotting to put a knife between his shoulder blades.
The situation is now being described as a civil war by none other than Sheila Copps. I had the opportunity to meet Miss Copps in 2003 and I very nearly ended up supporting her for the Liberal leadership that year. I bring this up because it is evidence that I respect her opinion and her insights. There were a couple of policy disagreements between us that ultimtaely led in me backing the greatest footnote in Canadian political history, but that in no way limits my respect for her. When she says that the old rivalries are resurfacing with new faces, I believe her. She knows many more people in higher places than I ever did in the Party, so her words should be taken seriously.
So it is the case that in September 2007 the Liberal Party of Canada is still engaged in the same internecine struggles that were damaging it in the period of 2002-2004. Rumours abound of plots to overthrow Stephane Dion's leadership, many of those plots focusing on Michael Ignatieff, but some also fingerpointing at Bob Rae. It is not entirely surprising that the impetus for all of this is a poor performance in 3 Quebec by-elections. Dion is a Quebec man, and it was believed that his long experience with the Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio and his self-proclaimed championing of a cause important to many Quebeckers--the environment--would help rebound sagging fortunes in the province. It turns out that the opposite has proven true. Dion hasn't established his credibility on the environmental file, having been criticized by former Cabinet colleagues who noted his lackadaisacal attitude when he was Environment Minister, and it turns out that many people in Quebec don't really appreciate his handling of Quebec-Ottawa relations. Plus he had a terrible organizational approach to the three elections, losing a long-standing Liberal stronghold and garnering a popular vote in the teens over the 3 ridings.
Cue the plotting. Ignatieff came out of the Montreal Convention as the runner-up to Dion. He was unable to grow his support from his initial 30% range on the first ballot to win the leadership, and I personally doubt that he'll be willing to stick around in Canadian politics as an opposition party critic for a long time when he knows that he could go back to any university and be the head of its political science department. Those hallways are less cutthroat than politics--Canadian and/or Liberal--and I would not be surprised if he regularly hears offers from institutions looking to add his formidable talents to their university. So it's either aim for coup or go back to academia for him. By all accounts, it seems he's going to try the coup first.
However, all of this neglects to look at the biggest problem the Liberal Party faces today. It is not that it's the same cast of stale characters or even the lack of a serious policy platform. It is criminal that they haven't held a policy convention since February 2005, that they don't articulate a consistent set of policies that liberals can rally around, sure. The biggest problem with the Liberal Party today is that it is called the Liberal Party. The brand is broken, toxic even. Back when Paul Martin became the party leader, the membership ranks boasted over half a million. Today it is a fraction of that. I don't know the numbers, but there are no pronouncements of mega-majorities or standing-proud local organizations looking to sign up every human soul in sight (living or dead, eh Joe Volpe?), so it is safe to assume that people have tuned out the Liberals. The absence of a message helps, but the lingering hostility over sponsorship, the fighting, the Martinites, and so much more takes precedence. Back in 2003 there was some hope for Liberals to make breakthroughs in areas that they had been shut out of since the days of Trudeau. Those are long gone, and they're now on the defensive even in bastions like Toronto and Montreal. Announce that you're a Liberal in some places and people may hiss and bear pitchforks.
What can they do? Rebuild, top to bottom. Make concrete steps to differentiate themselves from the Liberal brand of the recent past. Transforming one's image is difficult but it can be done--look at Stephen, formerly "Scary," Harper and his continued success as Prime Minister. Drop the arrogance, drop the "blame the voters" mentality, don't accuse people who disagree with you of lacking a "social conscience," don't formulate talking points around George W. Bush. Talk about your vision, talk about liberal values, compassion, humanity, a "role of pride and influence in the world," things that people can support. If they don't, these civil wars will be without end, and every leader will spend an inordinate amount of time looking over his shoulder to find out who is plotting to put a knife between his shoulder blades.
06 September 2007
A Revived Agenda?
Earlier this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his intention to prorogue Parliament until mid-October. In addition to the Opposition's blathering that "several important bills will die" on the Order Paper, this gives the PM the opportunity to present a new Speech From the Throne and commence a new drive towards the next election--be it in October 2009 or sooner.
This is a very intelligent move on Harper's part. For the last several months of the 1st session under his stewardship, it appeared as though the government had no future plans beyond moving to complete its five-point program announced in the election campagin. Parliament drifted and sputtered towards the summer recess, and the Liberals were able to make some hay out of a government that was presenting no plan on Afghanistan, interprovincial relations, or any other issue that threatened to derail Harper. Much of this hay is of the cheap variety, and not likely to remain vital in an actual campaign, but it did ding--somewhat--Harper's image as being firmly in control of the situation.
With a new Speech From the Throne, Harper will be permitted to introduce a revised and current agenda for the government. It will almost certainly include Afghanistan as a major plank of the government's policy agenda. With Peter Mackay now at the helm at DND and with Maxime Bernier heading up Foreign Affairs, there is a renewed opportunity to make a clear, strong, and articulate case for Canada remaining in Afghanistan beyond the current mission in Kandahar's deadline of February 2009. The Opposition has been able to batter Harper over Afghanistan all summer, insisting upon more debates, serving notice to NATO regarding our intentions, and getting Canadian Forces personnel out of the most dangerous region of Afghanistan and letting our allies share more of the burden instead of remaining comfortably in their bases when night falls. I have severe doubts that Harper will be able to achieve the "consensus" that he seeks from Parliament to extend Canada's participation in Afghanistan's reconstruction and stabilization, but he may be able to eke out a different type of mission there in a more pacified region. What the consequences will be Kandahar and a potential Taliban resurgence there, we'll have to make sure to ask of our parliamentarians who want Canada out of that country.
Beyond Afghanistan, there's a lot of room to maneuver on a number of issues that matter to Canadians. No party has yet been able to claim a legitimate monopoly on the environmental file. Looking at health care in the 21st century has been less central to political discourse than it was throughout the 1990s. Post-secondary education is a political football that can be kicked around to attract younger voters. The economy is in good shape, will there be a push to further bolster Canada's international standing by signing some new free trade pacts? Perhaps a beginning of a campaign to get Canada back on the UN Security Council? Will there be some real initiative and imagination demonstrated regarding new international organizations, the push for gender equality to make up for the horrible public relations fiasco early in Harper's term, and raising Canadians' standard of living?
Of course, presenting a Speech From the Throne also gives the Opposition the opportunity to bring down the government and force an election. I can't see that being in the interests of any of the three parties, the Canadian people, or the government. Dion has shown some bluster and hinted that he may try to pull the plug--why I don't know, since he's even faltering on the only pillar of his "three pillars" strategy. If the government showed signs of a lack of direction, the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP have been even worse. They've been highly critical of whatever offerings the government has made, sure, but they've not offered up a single alternative that has captured the imaginations of Canadians (a truly daunting task!) to shift public opinion in their court.
One thing is for sure: with the return of Parliament return also the talk shows, the pundits, the op-eds, and of course the speculation of an upcoming election. As a political junkie, this is my lifeblood, and I'm very happy to see that the forthcoming session offers considerable opportunity for all parties to make a significant mark.
This is a very intelligent move on Harper's part. For the last several months of the 1st session under his stewardship, it appeared as though the government had no future plans beyond moving to complete its five-point program announced in the election campagin. Parliament drifted and sputtered towards the summer recess, and the Liberals were able to make some hay out of a government that was presenting no plan on Afghanistan, interprovincial relations, or any other issue that threatened to derail Harper. Much of this hay is of the cheap variety, and not likely to remain vital in an actual campaign, but it did ding--somewhat--Harper's image as being firmly in control of the situation.
With a new Speech From the Throne, Harper will be permitted to introduce a revised and current agenda for the government. It will almost certainly include Afghanistan as a major plank of the government's policy agenda. With Peter Mackay now at the helm at DND and with Maxime Bernier heading up Foreign Affairs, there is a renewed opportunity to make a clear, strong, and articulate case for Canada remaining in Afghanistan beyond the current mission in Kandahar's deadline of February 2009. The Opposition has been able to batter Harper over Afghanistan all summer, insisting upon more debates, serving notice to NATO regarding our intentions, and getting Canadian Forces personnel out of the most dangerous region of Afghanistan and letting our allies share more of the burden instead of remaining comfortably in their bases when night falls. I have severe doubts that Harper will be able to achieve the "consensus" that he seeks from Parliament to extend Canada's participation in Afghanistan's reconstruction and stabilization, but he may be able to eke out a different type of mission there in a more pacified region. What the consequences will be Kandahar and a potential Taliban resurgence there, we'll have to make sure to ask of our parliamentarians who want Canada out of that country.
Beyond Afghanistan, there's a lot of room to maneuver on a number of issues that matter to Canadians. No party has yet been able to claim a legitimate monopoly on the environmental file. Looking at health care in the 21st century has been less central to political discourse than it was throughout the 1990s. Post-secondary education is a political football that can be kicked around to attract younger voters. The economy is in good shape, will there be a push to further bolster Canada's international standing by signing some new free trade pacts? Perhaps a beginning of a campaign to get Canada back on the UN Security Council? Will there be some real initiative and imagination demonstrated regarding new international organizations, the push for gender equality to make up for the horrible public relations fiasco early in Harper's term, and raising Canadians' standard of living?
Of course, presenting a Speech From the Throne also gives the Opposition the opportunity to bring down the government and force an election. I can't see that being in the interests of any of the three parties, the Canadian people, or the government. Dion has shown some bluster and hinted that he may try to pull the plug--why I don't know, since he's even faltering on the only pillar of his "three pillars" strategy. If the government showed signs of a lack of direction, the Liberals, Bloc, and NDP have been even worse. They've been highly critical of whatever offerings the government has made, sure, but they've not offered up a single alternative that has captured the imaginations of Canadians (a truly daunting task!) to shift public opinion in their court.
One thing is for sure: with the return of Parliament return also the talk shows, the pundits, the op-eds, and of course the speculation of an upcoming election. As a political junkie, this is my lifeblood, and I'm very happy to see that the forthcoming session offers considerable opportunity for all parties to make a significant mark.
03 May 2007
Hello From BC!
Today marks Day 3 of the Great BC Adventure of 2007!
CBC announced this morning that the fixed election date bill will receive royal assent today, which means that the next election will take place on October 19, 2009. So much for a spring vote! On the other hand, I know what M. Dion is thinking: can Canada wait that long? Can the world? Since every new day is the worst in Canada's environmental history, you'd think that he'll be making every effort to ensure that Harper loses the confidence of the House before then...unless that whole spiel about the impending environmental calamity is just words.
Canucks fever here in BC took a huge hit on Tuesday night. I was in bed when the great collapse took place. They were up 2-1 early in the 3rd but when I woke up the next morning, they had lost. I made the quip to my sister, who works at a car parts shop, that the Canucks flags they sell should be going on at half price now that they're effectively toast.
Kelowna's pace of development is incredible to see. New huge buildings popping up everywhere. Prices are high. There is a working shortage and businesses are advertising openly what they will pay you to come work for them. This is a marked contrast to life in Halifax.
The sun is out today, which I haven't seen in about 10 days. I am going to play in it. See you later.
CBC announced this morning that the fixed election date bill will receive royal assent today, which means that the next election will take place on October 19, 2009. So much for a spring vote! On the other hand, I know what M. Dion is thinking: can Canada wait that long? Can the world? Since every new day is the worst in Canada's environmental history, you'd think that he'll be making every effort to ensure that Harper loses the confidence of the House before then...unless that whole spiel about the impending environmental calamity is just words.
Canucks fever here in BC took a huge hit on Tuesday night. I was in bed when the great collapse took place. They were up 2-1 early in the 3rd but when I woke up the next morning, they had lost. I made the quip to my sister, who works at a car parts shop, that the Canucks flags they sell should be going on at half price now that they're effectively toast.
Kelowna's pace of development is incredible to see. New huge buildings popping up everywhere. Prices are high. There is a working shortage and businesses are advertising openly what they will pay you to come work for them. This is a marked contrast to life in Halifax.
The sun is out today, which I haven't seen in about 10 days. I am going to play in it. See you later.
25 April 2007
The Defeated Resolution
I've been mulling over whether to do a full post on the now-defeated Coderre resolution that would have purportedly brought an end to Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan in February 2009. After looking at it more closely, I've decided to go ahead on the grounds that the Liberals, for all their claims of seeking "clarity" on Canada's commitment to Afghanistan's reconstruction, would have further muddied the waters. First, the resolution's active clause (for the preambulatory clauses, go here:
this House call upon the government to confirm that Canada’s existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February 2009, at which time Canadian combat operations in Southern Afghanistan will conclude; and call upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately.
I am not a linguist by trade, nor am I a lawyer. Nonetheless, I know that the wording of this resolution is deeply flawed if the Liberals truly want to bring an end to all Canadian combat missions in Afghanistan at the current February 2009 deadline. I don't know whether they purposefully or unintentionally left the clause vague, but nonetheless this resolution left open the door for the government to continue military operations beyond February 2009. Allow me to explain.
First, the resolution speaks of the "existing military deployment," which can be interpreted to mean the current operation and not the mission itself. Suppose Canada order a fresh military deployment to another region of Afghanistan, either by sending in new forces or a re-deployment of current Canadian Forces already in Afghanistan. How would such a new deployment relate to this resolution? What if the government were to order a new deployment scheduled to begin in March 2009? These are important questions that the failed Liberal measure does not address.
Second, the resolution calls for "Canadian combat operations" in "Southern Afghanistan" to conclude. It doesn't call for an end to "all Canadian combat operations in Afghanistan" in February 2009. This can allow for the Canadian Forces to deployed in Afghanistan for designated non-combat operations, and it can also allow for them to be re-deployed to another region of Afghanistan for combat operations. Most importantly of all, it doesn't call for all Canadian combat operations to end. The addition of the word "the" before "Canadian combat operations" would make it more restrictive, but worded as it is, it is still left vague and open to interpretation.
This brings to mind something which I read in Alan Dershowitz's book, The Case for Israel. In it, Dershowitz examines the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the return of "territories" to a future state called Palestine. It does not call for "all territories" or "the territories" that have been occupied by Israel, though that is the position which most hardliners and the terrorist organizations have claimed to be mandated by the UN. Under that language, Israel will be obligated, and is readily prepared, to concede some territory that will form the nucleus of a Palestinian state. But it is not obligated to return all of the territory.
The Liberal resolution relies upon similar wording, so it is entirely reasonable to interpret it in a similar fashion. By calling for "Canadian combat operations" to end, the resolution does not call for a withdrawal of all Canadian Forces from Kandahar nor does it call for the end of all combat operations in "Southern Afghanistan." Thus, Jack Layton had a point when he said that the resolution opens the door for extending the mission, a point which the Liberals' star blogger has missed, which is something totally anathema to the NDP's desire for immediate withdrawal of all Canadian Forces personnel from combat operations in Afghanistan.
The Liberals' failed resolution did not bring clarity. I am astonished that their leader, who prides himself and refers to the Clarity Act (1998) as a highlight of his career, allowed the resolution to go as far as it did. Had it been passed, it would have done the opposite of providing clarity to Canada's mission in Afghanistan. The serious unresolved questions that I raised above, combined with the horribly bad wording, would have left the status of Canada's Afghanistan mission with even less clarity, and subject to the interpretation of the governing party.
this House call upon the government to confirm that Canada’s existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February 2009, at which time Canadian combat operations in Southern Afghanistan will conclude; and call upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately.
I am not a linguist by trade, nor am I a lawyer. Nonetheless, I know that the wording of this resolution is deeply flawed if the Liberals truly want to bring an end to all Canadian combat missions in Afghanistan at the current February 2009 deadline. I don't know whether they purposefully or unintentionally left the clause vague, but nonetheless this resolution left open the door for the government to continue military operations beyond February 2009. Allow me to explain.
First, the resolution speaks of the "existing military deployment," which can be interpreted to mean the current operation and not the mission itself. Suppose Canada order a fresh military deployment to another region of Afghanistan, either by sending in new forces or a re-deployment of current Canadian Forces already in Afghanistan. How would such a new deployment relate to this resolution? What if the government were to order a new deployment scheduled to begin in March 2009? These are important questions that the failed Liberal measure does not address.
Second, the resolution calls for "Canadian combat operations" in "Southern Afghanistan" to conclude. It doesn't call for an end to "all Canadian combat operations in Afghanistan" in February 2009. This can allow for the Canadian Forces to deployed in Afghanistan for designated non-combat operations, and it can also allow for them to be re-deployed to another region of Afghanistan for combat operations. Most importantly of all, it doesn't call for all Canadian combat operations to end. The addition of the word "the" before "Canadian combat operations" would make it more restrictive, but worded as it is, it is still left vague and open to interpretation.
This brings to mind something which I read in Alan Dershowitz's book, The Case for Israel. In it, Dershowitz examines the language of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the return of "territories" to a future state called Palestine. It does not call for "all territories" or "the territories" that have been occupied by Israel, though that is the position which most hardliners and the terrorist organizations have claimed to be mandated by the UN. Under that language, Israel will be obligated, and is readily prepared, to concede some territory that will form the nucleus of a Palestinian state. But it is not obligated to return all of the territory.
The Liberal resolution relies upon similar wording, so it is entirely reasonable to interpret it in a similar fashion. By calling for "Canadian combat operations" to end, the resolution does not call for a withdrawal of all Canadian Forces from Kandahar nor does it call for the end of all combat operations in "Southern Afghanistan." Thus, Jack Layton had a point when he said that the resolution opens the door for extending the mission, a point which the Liberals' star blogger has missed, which is something totally anathema to the NDP's desire for immediate withdrawal of all Canadian Forces personnel from combat operations in Afghanistan.
The Liberals' failed resolution did not bring clarity. I am astonished that their leader, who prides himself and refers to the Clarity Act (1998) as a highlight of his career, allowed the resolution to go as far as it did. Had it been passed, it would have done the opposite of providing clarity to Canada's mission in Afghanistan. The serious unresolved questions that I raised above, combined with the horribly bad wording, would have left the status of Canada's Afghanistan mission with even less clarity, and subject to the interpretation of the governing party.
24 April 2007
In The Headlines, Canadian Edition
After going global yesterday, nothing but Canadianna today...
Is it me, or is the media trying to spin Harper's image consultant into an actual issue? They spent two segments on it on Sunday's Question Period. I realize that it's one of those poke-fun-at-the-politician things, but there's other, more important issues that CTV's flagship Sunday talk show should be examining. Bringing in numerous talking heads to discuss from multiple points-of-view is a waste of airtime and insulting to Canadians who expect to see actual issues discussed....such as:
Tonight there is going to be a vote on withdrawing Canadian participation from Afghanistan with a hard deadline of February 2009, regardless of the situation in the country and the wishes of Canada's ISAF and NATO allies. For all their criticism of certain neighbours and their supposed unilateralism, declaring without consulting our allies or making a thorough assessment of the conditions on the ground, the opposition parties seem hellbent on unilaterally ending Canada's significant role in reconstructing Afghanistan. Of course it is our decision to make, but to do so without an eye on Canadian national interests and those of our partners spits in the face of well-meaning Canadian multilateralism that was once a hallmark of Liberal-driven Canadian foreign policy. It's almost farcical that the vote hinges on the NDP lining up with the government to defeat the Liberals and the Bloc.
Sticking with Afghanistan, there are some very loud rumours that Canadians are turning over detainees to the Afghan authorities, who are reportedly torturing them. Though there has been no confirmation or denial on these accusations, they are very serious indeed and go straight to the heart of what distinguishes us and what we're helping to build in Afghanistan, and the vile Taliban regime that instituted its tyrannical oppression prior to 9/11. Simply put, Canadians do not and should not support or condone the use of torture, and we would be justly aghast if it turned out that there was some complicity on Canada's part in certain individuals being tortured. Stephane Dion's assertion that we should re-locate these suspected terrorists to Canada is patently absurd, and I'm not seeing the logic in demanding Gordon O'Connor's resignation before: a) the facts are known, b) there is sufficient evidence that Canadians are turning Taliban insurgents over to Afghan authorities for the purpose of having them tortured. It's ridiculous to demand the resignation of a top-level minister over a rumour. Once we get a) and if true, combined with a solid dose of b), sure, but such demands are out of whack right at this stage.
Is it me, or is the media trying to spin Harper's image consultant into an actual issue? They spent two segments on it on Sunday's Question Period. I realize that it's one of those poke-fun-at-the-politician things, but there's other, more important issues that CTV's flagship Sunday talk show should be examining. Bringing in numerous talking heads to discuss from multiple points-of-view is a waste of airtime and insulting to Canadians who expect to see actual issues discussed....such as:
Tonight there is going to be a vote on withdrawing Canadian participation from Afghanistan with a hard deadline of February 2009, regardless of the situation in the country and the wishes of Canada's ISAF and NATO allies. For all their criticism of certain neighbours and their supposed unilateralism, declaring without consulting our allies or making a thorough assessment of the conditions on the ground, the opposition parties seem hellbent on unilaterally ending Canada's significant role in reconstructing Afghanistan. Of course it is our decision to make, but to do so without an eye on Canadian national interests and those of our partners spits in the face of well-meaning Canadian multilateralism that was once a hallmark of Liberal-driven Canadian foreign policy. It's almost farcical that the vote hinges on the NDP lining up with the government to defeat the Liberals and the Bloc.
Sticking with Afghanistan, there are some very loud rumours that Canadians are turning over detainees to the Afghan authorities, who are reportedly torturing them. Though there has been no confirmation or denial on these accusations, they are very serious indeed and go straight to the heart of what distinguishes us and what we're helping to build in Afghanistan, and the vile Taliban regime that instituted its tyrannical oppression prior to 9/11. Simply put, Canadians do not and should not support or condone the use of torture, and we would be justly aghast if it turned out that there was some complicity on Canada's part in certain individuals being tortured. Stephane Dion's assertion that we should re-locate these suspected terrorists to Canada is patently absurd, and I'm not seeing the logic in demanding Gordon O'Connor's resignation before: a) the facts are known, b) there is sufficient evidence that Canadians are turning Taliban insurgents over to Afghan authorities for the purpose of having them tortured. It's ridiculous to demand the resignation of a top-level minister over a rumour. Once we get a) and if true, combined with a solid dose of b), sure, but such demands are out of whack right at this stage.
19 April 2007
Random
- Year Zero is fantastic. Go buy it, make sure to note the change in CD colour after playing it. Be sure to check out: http://www.freerebelart.net and scare your friends too.
- Less than two weeks until I go back to the Okanagan. I can't wait. The weather here has been hideous lately, the job market has little for me, drivers are terrible (yet another close call in an intersection on Monday night), apples are obscenely expensive, and people frequently smoke in non-smoking areas.
- I'm reading a fictional book for the first time--anything Star Wars notwithstanding--since I can't remember. It's Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, on the recommendation of one Banana Doodle. Very chilling book about a dystopian future (what is up with all the dystopian future tales these days?) in which women have no rights at all. Best line: "Maybe boredom is erotic, when it is women doing it, for men." Wait, that's the current environment!
- Is bringing up the "global conscience" conference the best way to demonstrate Stephane Dion's leadership credentials? Not really. President by default of a talking head meet-n-schmooze isn't going to inspire Canadians when the overwhelming number of Canadians don't actually pay close attention to these types of conferences. What he needs is a nickname. It worked well for Chretien.
- I read the entire 70+ page US Supreme Court decision yesterday pertaining to the ruling in the so-called "partial birth abortion" legislation that Congress passed in 2003. Very informative reading, yet I am surprised and disappointed at the conclusion that the majority reached based on the information provided by the doctors who had the most experience and knowledge in performing abortions. Justice Ginsberg's dissent was impassioned and powerful, and I tend to agree with her: removing one of the safest methods of performing a second trimester abortion as an option seems to be an interference on the part of the state with a woman's sovereignty over her own body. Not surprisingly, Americans are largely divided along partisan lines, and the reaction is very strong from both camps.
- The playoffs just haven't been as fun to watch this year without Montreal in them.
- I managed to catch a show on PBS' America at the Crossroads series that was hosted and narrated by Richard Perle. Whatever mistakes have been made, America's course is still the right one, and I'm happy to see proponents of America's current grand strategy--the Bush Doctrine--still being given airtime.
- As feared, the murderer at Virginia Tech is increasingly appearing to be, at least partially, motivated by a hatred of women. A loner, a stalker, first victim was a woman, another woman reportedly shot in the eye. This wasn't the sole motivation--though apparently some rag in Britain posted a picture of Emily Hilscher with the headline "Was it an obsession with Emily that drove gunman to kill?" and a first sentence of "This is the face of the teenage student who may have sparked the biggest gun massacre in US history." It turns out that they never were an item, but for whatever reason, this paper was compelled to lay the blame on her as the cause of Cho's madness and violent rampage. Despicable. We obviously know that he was twisted and warped by a number of factors, but the all-too-common theme of misogyny is yet again a player in a man's determination to go on a path of slaughter.
14 April 2007
Thanks to Andrew Coyne putting up some more of Kevin Potvin's filth, we can now have an insight into the Green Party's perspectives about the world around us, a foreign policy that Stephane Dion is giving a free pass in the riding of Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. The following italicized quotes all come from articles written by Potvin that Coyne has linked to, if you want to read them in full, I suggest visiting Coyne's place. My comments in regular text follow . . .
We share common cause with the Islamist terrorists
Far from being unreasonable fanatics, the terrorists fight for the same things we do. We have a common enemy.
The London subway bombings were not cowardly, despicable and unspeakable acts; they were acts of war, and civilians for a century have been regarded as legitimate targets in war, even if our own warriors don’t admit it.
[I]n fact there is a real and serious war on and that the other side does have great and noble, and compellingly existential, reasons to fight.
I think there's enough suspicion about the origins of 9-11 to make it an issue since it has so much to do with Canadian foreign policy.
Osama bin Laden does not fight for the same things that the Canadian Forces or Canada's allies fight for. To suggest that is the case is the most despicable form of moral equivalency and completely ignorant of basic facts, such as, but not limited to: Osama bin Laden used Afghanistan for the purpose of establishing a base to conduct terrorist acts and used his proxy, the Taliban, to institute a ruthless dictatorship over the people of Afghanistan that denied them basic human rights and freedoms. Canada and its NATO partners are there to undo the damage done to Afghanistan's civil society, and help build democratic institutions, the rule of law, and provide security and defend the rights of the country's people from the attempts of the Taliban insurgency to retake the country. Canada has not a single common cause with Osama bin Laden and his ilk.
Targeting civilians, as was the case in the despicable act of the London subway bombing, is not a legitimate tactic in 21st century warfare. That is the basic reason that Canadian Forces, the Israeli Defence Forces, NATO, and other states and alliances do not condone, and indeed strongly condemn, the deliberate targeting of civilians in military theatres. Those who do intentionally attack civilians are rightly defined as war criminals, and are often brought to trial in democratic states. Israel has possibly the most strict legislation of any country when it comes to inflicting civilian casualties in war, and it is the state that is under considerable duress and threat of being extinguished or, as Iran's president prefers, 'wiped off the map.' Democratic states do not target civilians, and go to great lengths to avoid civilian deaths. We gain no benefit from murdering civilians, and we inflict legal penalties upon those who are found to be guilty of doing so, even in the heat of combat. Terrorists, on the other hand, are not traditional legitimate combatants. They wear no uniform, no identifiable insignia that distinguishes them from civilians. They, unlike us, do deliberately target civilians, and they also benefit from the death of civilians that we are responsible for causing. Whereas we fight with one hand behind our back, they deliberately target those who are not involved in the military conflicts in the many theatres around the world. This is but one of many areas in which Potvin's attempt to place Canada and its democratic allies on a moral par with, as being the same as, terrorists organizations fails miserably any well-thought scrutiny.
Installing a regime of sharia law is not a particularly noble agenda when one considers the implications for the rights of women. We know what those implications are, for we see them on a regular basis in countries such as Pakistan or even some areas of Afghanistan still. The objectives of the terrorists include the destruction of Israel, the religious purification of all lands that have ever been held by Muslims, the death of four million Americans, and the utter destruction of any semblance of democracy in the Middle East. To proclaim these ends as good and noble implies that the means being used to achieve them are also good and noble. Strapping bomb belts to young children, HIV-positive people and pregnant women, and sending them off to detonate themselves in shopping malls, theatres, and public gathering areas are not noble means that will achieve a noble end. They only perpetuate violence and prevent moderate Muslims from being able to move forward on truly noble goals, such as the establishment of a viable, free, and non-threatening Palestinian state, or the building of relations between Muslim states and the West.
To suggest that 9/11 was somehow an internal operation conducted by the United States against its own citizens defies all common sense, as well as some of the more obtuse public perceptions about the administration of George W. Bush. A democratic state would never engineer the cold-blooded murder of almost 3000 of its own citizens, and it would certainly never get away with it. The 9/11 Commission Report is a thorough analysis of the events of that day and the sequence that led up to it. It is one thing to question the response of the American government to 9/11, it is entirely another to suggest that it is responsible for orchestrating it. So many nutbars out there are so insistent that Bush is a moron; wouldn't something as huge in scale as 9/11 therefore be out of his range? Or is that also one of those things that is a Dick Cheney-Donald Rumsfeld-Paul Wolfowitz-Halliburton puppet show?
People like Kevin Potvin have had the red carpet rolled out for them. Shouldn't Dion have done his research into what these people think before so eagerly embracing Elizabeth May? He is subverting his own party in Central Nova in order for there to be a supposed greater chance to knock off the Canadian Foreign Minister. Are the above statements what any of us really want to replace the common-sense, democratically-minded approach of the Conservatives? I should like to think absolutely not.
We share common cause with the Islamist terrorists
Far from being unreasonable fanatics, the terrorists fight for the same things we do. We have a common enemy.
The London subway bombings were not cowardly, despicable and unspeakable acts; they were acts of war, and civilians for a century have been regarded as legitimate targets in war, even if our own warriors don’t admit it.
[I]n fact there is a real and serious war on and that the other side does have great and noble, and compellingly existential, reasons to fight.
I think there's enough suspicion about the origins of 9-11 to make it an issue since it has so much to do with Canadian foreign policy.
Osama bin Laden does not fight for the same things that the Canadian Forces or Canada's allies fight for. To suggest that is the case is the most despicable form of moral equivalency and completely ignorant of basic facts, such as, but not limited to: Osama bin Laden used Afghanistan for the purpose of establishing a base to conduct terrorist acts and used his proxy, the Taliban, to institute a ruthless dictatorship over the people of Afghanistan that denied them basic human rights and freedoms. Canada and its NATO partners are there to undo the damage done to Afghanistan's civil society, and help build democratic institutions, the rule of law, and provide security and defend the rights of the country's people from the attempts of the Taliban insurgency to retake the country. Canada has not a single common cause with Osama bin Laden and his ilk.
Targeting civilians, as was the case in the despicable act of the London subway bombing, is not a legitimate tactic in 21st century warfare. That is the basic reason that Canadian Forces, the Israeli Defence Forces, NATO, and other states and alliances do not condone, and indeed strongly condemn, the deliberate targeting of civilians in military theatres. Those who do intentionally attack civilians are rightly defined as war criminals, and are often brought to trial in democratic states. Israel has possibly the most strict legislation of any country when it comes to inflicting civilian casualties in war, and it is the state that is under considerable duress and threat of being extinguished or, as Iran's president prefers, 'wiped off the map.' Democratic states do not target civilians, and go to great lengths to avoid civilian deaths. We gain no benefit from murdering civilians, and we inflict legal penalties upon those who are found to be guilty of doing so, even in the heat of combat. Terrorists, on the other hand, are not traditional legitimate combatants. They wear no uniform, no identifiable insignia that distinguishes them from civilians. They, unlike us, do deliberately target civilians, and they also benefit from the death of civilians that we are responsible for causing. Whereas we fight with one hand behind our back, they deliberately target those who are not involved in the military conflicts in the many theatres around the world. This is but one of many areas in which Potvin's attempt to place Canada and its democratic allies on a moral par with, as being the same as, terrorists organizations fails miserably any well-thought scrutiny.
Installing a regime of sharia law is not a particularly noble agenda when one considers the implications for the rights of women. We know what those implications are, for we see them on a regular basis in countries such as Pakistan or even some areas of Afghanistan still. The objectives of the terrorists include the destruction of Israel, the religious purification of all lands that have ever been held by Muslims, the death of four million Americans, and the utter destruction of any semblance of democracy in the Middle East. To proclaim these ends as good and noble implies that the means being used to achieve them are also good and noble. Strapping bomb belts to young children, HIV-positive people and pregnant women, and sending them off to detonate themselves in shopping malls, theatres, and public gathering areas are not noble means that will achieve a noble end. They only perpetuate violence and prevent moderate Muslims from being able to move forward on truly noble goals, such as the establishment of a viable, free, and non-threatening Palestinian state, or the building of relations between Muslim states and the West.
To suggest that 9/11 was somehow an internal operation conducted by the United States against its own citizens defies all common sense, as well as some of the more obtuse public perceptions about the administration of George W. Bush. A democratic state would never engineer the cold-blooded murder of almost 3000 of its own citizens, and it would certainly never get away with it. The 9/11 Commission Report is a thorough analysis of the events of that day and the sequence that led up to it. It is one thing to question the response of the American government to 9/11, it is entirely another to suggest that it is responsible for orchestrating it. So many nutbars out there are so insistent that Bush is a moron; wouldn't something as huge in scale as 9/11 therefore be out of his range? Or is that also one of those things that is a Dick Cheney-Donald Rumsfeld-Paul Wolfowitz-Halliburton puppet show?
People like Kevin Potvin have had the red carpet rolled out for them. Shouldn't Dion have done his research into what these people think before so eagerly embracing Elizabeth May? He is subverting his own party in Central Nova in order for there to be a supposed greater chance to knock off the Canadian Foreign Minister. Are the above statements what any of us really want to replace the common-sense, democratically-minded approach of the Conservatives? I should like to think absolutely not.
More Thoughts on the Dion-May Alliance
As you know by reading the blurb to the right, I once served on a Liberal Riding Association as its Policy Chair. Prior to holding that position, I was involved with the Kelowna Liberals' efforts to elect Vern Nielsen in 2004. Though I didn't know much about Mr. Nielsen when it was announced that he would be the candidate, it didn't take very long to get the measure of the man and his strong desire to give Kelowna an active MP that would strive to work hard to represent the interest of the people in the riding. I never thought that much of Werner Schmidt, someone who got the Ottawa position pretty much by default after getting the nomination for the then-Canadian Alliance--a trend that has continued with his successor, Ron Cannan, under the Conservative banner.
Nielsen was a good candidate, and he was chosen by the (admittedly small) Liberal grassroots in Kelowna to be their candidate, to carry the red torch in an area that hadn't elected a Liberal since 1968. It was an uphill battle, but it was one that all of us who worked on the campaign--including some really good friends--believed we could win, the sponsorship scandal and its implications notwithstanding. It wasn't meant to be, as Schmidt won re-election but with a smaller percentage of the vote and by a smaller margin than in 2000.
As disappointing as the sting of electoral defeat was, I cannot even imagine how disappointed the Liberal grassroots of Central Nova are. They will not even have the opportunity to field a candidate in the next election--whenever that may be. I know that if some sort of arrangement had been made by Paul Martin and the Green Party in 2004, there is no way I would have voted for that Green candidate. Truth be told, I don't know what I would have done, but I know one thing that I wouldn't. This is the dilemma that Central Nova's Liberals face today. A lot of people there have been Liberals for life, some are Gritus Inheritus, as Chucker puts it, and they have been put in a very awkward position because of the short-sighted and opportunistic grab of a largely meaningless endorsement from a fringe party by their leader. Unless one is really gung-ho about the environment, there is little that links a mainstream Liberal with Elizabeth May. She is anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, anti-free trade, and her party has more nutbars than even the nuttiest wings of the Liberal Party. She believes that Canada is suffering a "crisis of democracy," even though Canada's democracy is exceptionally healthy. Her comments on abortion--including this one: "I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose," implying that a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy is something undertaken flippantly or without due consideration in some cases--have led Judy Rebick, author of the book that Anna Lou is presently reading, Ten Thousand Roses, to withdraw her support for May and the Green Party.
Were I still a Liberal that followed the party line on these major issues, I would have serious concerns about my leader conceding the ground of Central Nova to Elizabeth May and her lunatic fringe party. It was only four months ago that Howard Dean urged Liberals, to thunderous applause, to not cede ground, not one vote, anywhere in the country. They've flip-flopped on that for no good reason, unless you count the quid pro quo of the Greens agreeing not to run a candidate in Stephane Dion's riding as a compelling reason to undermine the party's stature of being a truly national party committed to advancing Liberal values in every riding of the country. The criticism that Dion is facing today as a direct consequence of this strategy, not only from the peanut gallery, the blogosphere, the media, and his opponents, but also some very high-placed people in his own party. Domestically, this will do far more damage to the Liberal brand than virtually any other misguided tactic or policy announcement in recent years, and there have been no shortage of those.
Nielsen was a good candidate, and he was chosen by the (admittedly small) Liberal grassroots in Kelowna to be their candidate, to carry the red torch in an area that hadn't elected a Liberal since 1968. It was an uphill battle, but it was one that all of us who worked on the campaign--including some really good friends--believed we could win, the sponsorship scandal and its implications notwithstanding. It wasn't meant to be, as Schmidt won re-election but with a smaller percentage of the vote and by a smaller margin than in 2000.
As disappointing as the sting of electoral defeat was, I cannot even imagine how disappointed the Liberal grassroots of Central Nova are. They will not even have the opportunity to field a candidate in the next election--whenever that may be. I know that if some sort of arrangement had been made by Paul Martin and the Green Party in 2004, there is no way I would have voted for that Green candidate. Truth be told, I don't know what I would have done, but I know one thing that I wouldn't. This is the dilemma that Central Nova's Liberals face today. A lot of people there have been Liberals for life, some are Gritus Inheritus, as Chucker puts it, and they have been put in a very awkward position because of the short-sighted and opportunistic grab of a largely meaningless endorsement from a fringe party by their leader. Unless one is really gung-ho about the environment, there is little that links a mainstream Liberal with Elizabeth May. She is anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, anti-free trade, and her party has more nutbars than even the nuttiest wings of the Liberal Party. She believes that Canada is suffering a "crisis of democracy," even though Canada's democracy is exceptionally healthy. Her comments on abortion--including this one: "I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose," implying that a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy is something undertaken flippantly or without due consideration in some cases--have led Judy Rebick, author of the book that Anna Lou is presently reading, Ten Thousand Roses, to withdraw her support for May and the Green Party.
Were I still a Liberal that followed the party line on these major issues, I would have serious concerns about my leader conceding the ground of Central Nova to Elizabeth May and her lunatic fringe party. It was only four months ago that Howard Dean urged Liberals, to thunderous applause, to not cede ground, not one vote, anywhere in the country. They've flip-flopped on that for no good reason, unless you count the quid pro quo of the Greens agreeing not to run a candidate in Stephane Dion's riding as a compelling reason to undermine the party's stature of being a truly national party committed to advancing Liberal values in every riding of the country. The criticism that Dion is facing today as a direct consequence of this strategy, not only from the peanut gallery, the blogosphere, the media, and his opponents, but also some very high-placed people in his own party. Domestically, this will do far more damage to the Liberal brand than virtually any other misguided tactic or policy announcement in recent years, and there have been no shortage of those.
13 April 2007
Dion Gives Party of 9/11 Fan a Free Pass
It seems like there is no end to escalation of vile things coming out of members of Canada's opposition parties this week. The forthcoming story actually manages to trump the last two head-slappers.
Yesterday it was made public knowledge that a member of the Green Party actually cheered when he saw the World Trade Centre towers collapse and did a fist-pump when he saw the gaping hole in the Pentagon. There's a story in today's Post about this clown and his unwillingness to apologize for those words, yet the more Liberal-friendly media sources are strangely silent on the matter.
Today, Stephane Dion is giving the leader of that party a free pass in her ill-conceived bid to try to unseat Peter Mackay in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova.
As the saying goes, timing is everything in politics. Dion's timing on this one could not possibly be worse, the optics are absolutely mortifying. There has been no call by Dion for the revolting Green Party member to apologize to the families of 9/11 victims, no call for the Greens to disassociate themselves from this member. Silence can be deafening, and in this case, it speaks volumes. Dion is so desperate to have somebody, anybody, backing him as the best choice for prime minister that he is not going to run a candidate in Central Nova in order to allow Elizabeth May a better chance to beat Mackay. She's hoping to fare better than the 2006 candidate, who managed to achieve a whopping 2% of the total vote. And he'll overlook the commentaries of the Greens' other candidates in order to secure that support, in addition to May's own views that are in stark, stark contrast to the Liberals' own positions. But hey, they're both "committed" to a greener Canada, so they're practically bosom buddies!
The Green Party is well-known for having more nutbars than a Snickers factory. At the Defence Policy forum that Dalhousie put on during the 2006 election, one of their members got hold of a live microphone and proceeded to go on an incoherent rant about a forthcoming nuclear first-strike against Iran and that Canada should not participate in such a thing. The party's grassroots are replete with people such as this, who hold views--which is certainly well within their constitutional rights, but why on earth would you want to exercise it?--that point the finger at the Bush Administration for orchestrating 9/11 and a myriad of other views that most well-thinking people would not consider to be "normal."
The bottom line: Dion is undermining the credibility of the Liberals as a national party and a rational party in order to get the endorsement of a party that has never elected a candidate to Parliament and won't be doing so in the next election. It is a foolish ploy that only heightens the negative sentiment that many Canadians have of his leadership, and gives credence--in a zero-sum fashion--to a party that believes "9/11 Was an Inside Job" and roots on terrorists more proudly than even Denis Coderre.
**Update** Fixed a sentence that was left completely hanging. I blame the gremlins.
Yesterday it was made public knowledge that a member of the Green Party actually cheered when he saw the World Trade Centre towers collapse and did a fist-pump when he saw the gaping hole in the Pentagon. There's a story in today's Post about this clown and his unwillingness to apologize for those words, yet the more Liberal-friendly media sources are strangely silent on the matter.
Today, Stephane Dion is giving the leader of that party a free pass in her ill-conceived bid to try to unseat Peter Mackay in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova.
As the saying goes, timing is everything in politics. Dion's timing on this one could not possibly be worse, the optics are absolutely mortifying. There has been no call by Dion for the revolting Green Party member to apologize to the families of 9/11 victims, no call for the Greens to disassociate themselves from this member. Silence can be deafening, and in this case, it speaks volumes. Dion is so desperate to have somebody, anybody, backing him as the best choice for prime minister that he is not going to run a candidate in Central Nova in order to allow Elizabeth May a better chance to beat Mackay. She's hoping to fare better than the 2006 candidate, who managed to achieve a whopping 2% of the total vote. And he'll overlook the commentaries of the Greens' other candidates in order to secure that support, in addition to May's own views that are in stark, stark contrast to the Liberals' own positions. But hey, they're both "committed" to a greener Canada, so they're practically bosom buddies!
The Green Party is well-known for having more nutbars than a Snickers factory. At the Defence Policy forum that Dalhousie put on during the 2006 election, one of their members got hold of a live microphone and proceeded to go on an incoherent rant about a forthcoming nuclear first-strike against Iran and that Canada should not participate in such a thing. The party's grassroots are replete with people such as this, who hold views--which is certainly well within their constitutional rights, but why on earth would you want to exercise it?--that point the finger at the Bush Administration for orchestrating 9/11 and a myriad of other views that most well-thinking people would not consider to be "normal."
The bottom line: Dion is undermining the credibility of the Liberals as a national party and a rational party in order to get the endorsement of a party that has never elected a candidate to Parliament and won't be doing so in the next election. It is a foolish ploy that only heightens the negative sentiment that many Canadians have of his leadership, and gives credence--in a zero-sum fashion--to a party that believes "9/11 Was an Inside Job" and roots on terrorists more proudly than even Denis Coderre.
**Update** Fixed a sentence that was left completely hanging. I blame the gremlins.
11 April 2007
But Who Will Handle the Complex Files?
Don't let the headline above fool you, I am actually disappointed and very surprised by Belinda Stronach's announcement that she is going to return to Magna and not run in the next federal election. I've always had a lot of respect for Stronach, and that the way she was treated by her opponents, the media, and others was unfair and more than a little revelatory of the latent sexism of some pundits. We all know the things that were said about her, and they do not deserve to be repeated.
Stronach was a big supporter of post-secondary education, enhancing the role of women and youth in politics, and played a key role in etablishing the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance. Her father's company, Magna, is the driving force behind the The Next Great Prime Minister series, she led the task force that resulted in the Liberals' Pink Book, and has many other achievements in politics. This is a sad day for Canadian politics, and an even worse one for Stephane Dion (as I asked my pal Chucker a couple weeks ago, is there any situation in which Dion is not the biggest loser?), as he is losing one of his most recognizable forces and a strong female candidate.
All the best to Belinda Stronach back at Magna.
Stronach was a big supporter of post-secondary education, enhancing the role of women and youth in politics, and played a key role in etablishing the merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance. Her father's company, Magna, is the driving force behind the The Next Great Prime Minister series, she led the task force that resulted in the Liberals' Pink Book, and has many other achievements in politics. This is a sad day for Canadian politics, and an even worse one for Stephane Dion (as I asked my pal Chucker a couple weeks ago, is there any situation in which Dion is not the biggest loser?), as he is losing one of his most recognizable forces and a strong female candidate.
All the best to Belinda Stronach back at Magna.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)