I have to admit, I don't like negative election ads. Long before the shenanigans that brought about this most recent election, I despised the Conservative *He didn't come back for you* ads. They just seemed so unnecessary, plus, I don't like the voice of the guy they have doing the voice-overs on their negative ads.
Anyway, today I saw the new Conservative ad about Jack Layton and the NDP and I decided to go look it up on conservative.ca. I'm glad I did. It made me think. A couple of google searches and I landed on Stephen Taylor's pages where I found myself re-reading things I'd completely forgotten since I shrugged off politics and went back to real life.
I remember 2008. Back then, I still paid attention to politics in a way that I haven't since. I still got angry at the sanctimony and piousness of the left. Once the talk of the rancid coalition fizzled, I sort of dropped out of current events. Burn out, I guess. Many of us spent a lot of emotion from 2004/05 and by the beginning of 2009, I'd had enough.
There are a lot of people out there like I've been this past couple of years. Disengaged. When you stop paying attention, you're also inclined to forget. I'm glad the Conservative attack ad made me remember and prompted me to google NDP strategist, Brian Topp, and his smug little book *How we almost gave the Tories the boot*.
Jack says he's *ready to be PM*
Hopefully, the blue Grits will come on over . . . because given the choice between the Liberals with their bad policies like(cap and trade) and their regurgitated promises (national daycare) and Jack Layton with his socialist agenda and soft talk on Bill 101 while he flirts with destiny . . . you won't recognize Canada when they get through with it.
canadianna
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Wake up time
This morning on the news I heard Jack Layton utter the words:
Maybe Jack's sincere belief and reaction to the upswing in the poll is enough to make more rational people snap out it and not give in to knee jerk disdain for Ignatieff and the Liberals.
Truth is, I like Jack and respect the NDP for their sincere beliefs. I simply think their fiscal policy is ruinous. Hearing those words from Jack's lips, and knowing he meant them ... it was almost surreal.
canadianna
In the first hundred days of an NDP government . . .And knowing, that not only is Jack serious, that sensible people are taking the notion seriously . . . you have to hope that people everywhere will remember Bob Rae and the protest vote that gave us the NDP majority in Ontario in the 90s.
Maybe Jack's sincere belief and reaction to the upswing in the poll is enough to make more rational people snap out it and not give in to knee jerk disdain for Ignatieff and the Liberals.
Truth is, I like Jack and respect the NDP for their sincere beliefs. I simply think their fiscal policy is ruinous. Hearing those words from Jack's lips, and knowing he meant them ... it was almost surreal.
canadianna
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Libs have the answer, refuse to use it
The Liberals have no official policy on abortion. The Conservatives do. Anyone who's paid attention these past few years knows that at the policy convention in 2005, the Conservative Party held that:
Now, some would say that this declaration allows a private member to put forward a bill, and that scoundrel Harper would allow his MPs to vote their conscience. What trickery! This would mean the deciding votes to institute an abortion law would have to come from the Liberals (because the Conservative Party is not 100% social conservatives and you'd never get enough from the NDP or Bloc).
I think what bothers the Liberals most is that they know that it would be the votes of their members that have the potential to regulate abortion in Canada. Scandalous!
It is unlikely that the Conservative Party alone would ever have enough votes to change the status of abortion or same-sex marriage or any other socially contentious issue. That means they'd need support from members of another party . . . Maybe the Liberals should actually make it Liberal policy that they will neither introduce nor vote for any abortion legislation brought before parliament. In one fell swoop they could thwart the secret evil social-conservative cabal in government.
Oh damn. Too simple. How could the Liberals even have a chance if they couldn't scream *hidden agenda*? They might have to think up new policy or something novel like that.
canadianna
58. Abortion LegislationThe Liberals have never made such a promise.
A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.
Now, some would say that this declaration allows a private member to put forward a bill, and that scoundrel Harper would allow his MPs to vote their conscience. What trickery! This would mean the deciding votes to institute an abortion law would have to come from the Liberals (because the Conservative Party is not 100% social conservatives and you'd never get enough from the NDP or Bloc).
I think what bothers the Liberals most is that they know that it would be the votes of their members that have the potential to regulate abortion in Canada. Scandalous!
It is unlikely that the Conservative Party alone would ever have enough votes to change the status of abortion or same-sex marriage or any other socially contentious issue. That means they'd need support from members of another party . . . Maybe the Liberals should actually make it Liberal policy that they will neither introduce nor vote for any abortion legislation brought before parliament. In one fell swoop they could thwart the secret evil social-conservative cabal in government.
Oh damn. Too simple. How could the Liberals even have a chance if they couldn't scream *hidden agenda*? They might have to think up new policy or something novel like that.
canadianna
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Is it over yet?
Here's what I think.
Some Liberal strategist who secretly likes Bob Rae and wants him to be the next Liberal leader/Prime Minister, is working hard on the campaign of Michael Ignatieff.
Everyone knows Bobby and Mike are long-time frenemies. Who do you suppose is gonna pick up the pieces after the Liberal's epic failure? I think I've heard Bob Rae's name once during this campaign. Hmmmmm . . .
Sadly, and though I hate to bring it up, during past campaigns, we've watched the Conservatives fumble in the last week and half before election day -- instead of recalling that, and savouring the possibilities, we've watched Liberals anticipating their own fall. And then, when you watch SUN-TV and hear Warren Kinsella talking as though he's doing a post-mortem on the Liberal campaign, you have to think there's a plan in the works -- a plan for the next election maybe?
The natural governing party of Canada as part of a humble and weak coalition in which a separatist party holds sway? I think not. Liberals are too arrogant. They're throwing the game. They must be.
canadianna
Some Liberal strategist who secretly likes Bob Rae and wants him to be the next Liberal leader/Prime Minister, is working hard on the campaign of Michael Ignatieff.
Everyone knows Bobby and Mike are long-time frenemies. Who do you suppose is gonna pick up the pieces after the Liberal's epic failure? I think I've heard Bob Rae's name once during this campaign. Hmmmmm . . .
Sadly, and though I hate to bring it up, during past campaigns, we've watched the Conservatives fumble in the last week and half before election day -- instead of recalling that, and savouring the possibilities, we've watched Liberals anticipating their own fall. And then, when you watch SUN-TV and hear Warren Kinsella talking as though he's doing a post-mortem on the Liberal campaign, you have to think there's a plan in the works -- a plan for the next election maybe?
The natural governing party of Canada as part of a humble and weak coalition in which a separatist party holds sway? I think not. Liberals are too arrogant. They're throwing the game. They must be.
canadianna
Sunday, April 17, 2011
You won't recognize Canada . . .
I think we've heard this song before.
Click the title link and read, as Warren Kinsella pulls out the same worn and tired Liberal red herrings as in 2006. What a shock. I thought hope, not fear, won elections. Who knew?
When the Liberals grasped at straws in 2006, suggesting that a Conservative win would make the sky crash, I wrote this (links to the post -- Activist Judges? Never).
Funny how the Liberals silly bag of tricks never holds anything new. Whether it's their promises, like Universal Child Care or their tactics, like scaring Canada into hating Harper (links to the post -- Defending Stephen Harper) or worse, trying to vilify a whole segment of Canadians for their core values (links to the post -- Expressing my views and advancing my cause) Liberals never seem to get bored with the idea that Canadians are too lazy to think.
Despite Kinsella's regurgitating old canards, Stephen Harper isn't stupid enough to dredge up dead social issues like same-sex marriage or abortion despite his personal beliefs on those issues. I think he and Conservatives believe they're done deals and that Canadians have other priorities. As for the death penalty, if that was in his nefarious plans, why build more jails when you're just gonna kill 'em all? And many rational, centrist Canadians agree with Harper on the long gun registry -- so as scary as going back to the days when farmers and hunters were running amok with unregistered guns, a lot of Canadians are okay if we revisit that.
The only ones scared right now are the Liberals.
Warren, you're starting to sound like a dinosaur.
Canadianna
Click the title link and read, as Warren Kinsella pulls out the same worn and tired Liberal red herrings as in 2006. What a shock. I thought hope, not fear, won elections. Who knew?
When the Liberals grasped at straws in 2006, suggesting that a Conservative win would make the sky crash, I wrote this (links to the post -- Activist Judges? Never).
Funny how the Liberals silly bag of tricks never holds anything new. Whether it's their promises, like Universal Child Care or their tactics, like scaring Canada into hating Harper (links to the post -- Defending Stephen Harper) or worse, trying to vilify a whole segment of Canadians for their core values (links to the post -- Expressing my views and advancing my cause) Liberals never seem to get bored with the idea that Canadians are too lazy to think.
Despite Kinsella's regurgitating old canards, Stephen Harper isn't stupid enough to dredge up dead social issues like same-sex marriage or abortion despite his personal beliefs on those issues. I think he and Conservatives believe they're done deals and that Canadians have other priorities. As for the death penalty, if that was in his nefarious plans, why build more jails when you're just gonna kill 'em all? And many rational, centrist Canadians agree with Harper on the long gun registry -- so as scary as going back to the days when farmers and hunters were running amok with unregistered guns, a lot of Canadians are okay if we revisit that.
The only ones scared right now are the Liberals.
Warren, you're starting to sound like a dinosaur.
Canadianna
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Dear Stephen,
There's no doubt in my mind that you can run a government . . . an election campaign . . . not so much. Don't mind me saying, a man who doesn't learn from his mistakes is making another mistake. Three times you've tried it your way and maybe you think fourth time's a charm. I'm thinking not.
The news link up top caught my attention. I don't believe for a minute that you've ordered your campaign people to toss out non-supporters at events. That kind of minutia is just not your turf when you're out there stumping . . . you're quoted in the piece as saying:
First, why were your staffers checking out people's Facebooks before they came in to hear you speak? I think that's creepy and I'm one of your supporters.
Second, your reaction to this very, very bad situation should not have been so blithe. You should find out who these girls were and invite them to talk with you personally . . . not only would it be a grand gesture, it would be the right thing to do.
Third, you should not fire the dorks who stopped them. You should give proper direction to those handling your campaign that you'd rather be disrupted by hecklers than by *their* stupidity.
You seem to have lightened up over the past few years and it suits you. It would serve you well to suggest your staffers do the same.
Finally, I hope you quit finding molehills to trip over, but when you do, remember that only you can make a misstep better--- not by shrugging it off like it was nothing --- because it wasn't *nothing* to those young women -- but by saying *wow, I didn't know that happened. I'd really like to make things right . . . * and then doing something to show you mean it.
Stephen, I've always thought you were the best man for the job, but the job is about more than just policy and platforms -- it's about people. You know it . . . so don't leave it to some staffer when things go wrong.
Sincerely,
Canadianna
The news link up top caught my attention. I don't believe for a minute that you've ordered your campaign people to toss out non-supporters at events. That kind of minutia is just not your turf when you're out there stumping . . . you're quoted in the piece as saying:
"Staff runs our campaigns and I can't comment on individual matters like that.''Sorry Stephen, not good enough.
First, why were your staffers checking out people's Facebooks before they came in to hear you speak? I think that's creepy and I'm one of your supporters.
Second, your reaction to this very, very bad situation should not have been so blithe. You should find out who these girls were and invite them to talk with you personally . . . not only would it be a grand gesture, it would be the right thing to do.
Third, you should not fire the dorks who stopped them. You should give proper direction to those handling your campaign that you'd rather be disrupted by hecklers than by *their* stupidity.
You seem to have lightened up over the past few years and it suits you. It would serve you well to suggest your staffers do the same.
Finally, I hope you quit finding molehills to trip over, but when you do, remember that only you can make a misstep better--- not by shrugging it off like it was nothing --- because it wasn't *nothing* to those young women -- but by saying *wow, I didn't know that happened. I'd really like to make things right . . . * and then doing something to show you mean it.
Stephen, I've always thought you were the best man for the job, but the job is about more than just policy and platforms -- it's about people. You know it . . . so don't leave it to some staffer when things go wrong.
Sincerely,
Canadianna
Monday, October 13, 2008
Election shocker: Harper not campaigning for the Liberals
In the latest of many shocking developments on the campaign trail, it has come to light that Stephen Harper is not championing the Liberal cause as things come down to the wire:
Not only that. Stephane Dion has it on good authority that Stephen Harper is either a clever ventriloquist or has the ability to speak to reporters with his mind:
It's astounding that the press treats Dion's every utterance as though it is both credible and news.
canadianna
Can you believe it? The audacity of the Conservative Party leader -- not mentioning a Liberal promise. You'd almost think Harper supports the Conservative platform rather than the Liberal one. Unthinkable."Today, he (Harper) will tour the country and he will not say a word about the Liberal tax cuts for families," Mr. Dion told an early morning rally at the headquarters of Fredericton candidate David Innes.
Not only that. Stephane Dion has it on good authority that Stephen Harper is either a clever ventriloquist or has the ability to speak to reporters with his mind:
Neat party trick, that -- lying while mute."He will be mute today and he will continue to lie about the Liberal climate-change plan," Mr. Dion said. For the past couple of days, Mr. Harper has stopped scrumming with the reporters travelling with him.
It's astounding that the press treats Dion's every utterance as though it is both credible and news.
canadianna
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
"Not Conservative"
It amazes me how many people are willing to jump onto the ABC bandwagon or buy into the 'Stop Harper' campaigns. With little thought to what the 'Anybody' in ABC might be putting forward in their own campaign, it seems many people are ready to define themselves as 'not Conservative'.
Congratulations. That's so clever. Well, if being 'not Conservative' is your main reason for voting for 'Anybody' else, then there are a few things you might want to think about before marking that ballot.
Stephen Harper is the only leader not panicking over the economy.
Who do you want at the helm-- a harried, worried scaremonger who sees icebergs and storms in every direction and who will run us aground or scurry for the nearest port? Or a calm, rational leader whose nerves are steady enough that he can steer through the crisis, not into it?
Personally, I'd go for the level-headed guy. Fear is self-fulfilling and panic-begets-panic-begets-crisis. Harper has been navigating choppy waters without getting into a tizzy like Dion, Layton and May. If he doesn't seem empathetic enough, thank God. There's someone who's keeping his head while those around him are losing theirs. If it seems cold or unkind -- I'll take it. It means he's not being governed by fear or emotion and guess what -- that's a good thing.
If you're simply anti-Conservative because you're stuck in the 'don't scare me' frame of mind -- then you are scary because the Conservatives are the only ones looking forward on the economy instead of trying to reach back.
Call me crazy, but I'm not surprised that Canada is losing jobs in the manufacturing sector -- are you?
In global economy, first world manufacturers with their nifty benefit packages, pension plans and high hourly wages are not competitive. Thanks Buzz, Sid, Jack and your ilk for years of amazing labour negotiations that have brought us to this point. The truth hurts -- you had it great when the economy was good and now that things are going down -- you're being hit hard. It's sad and I feel for all the people who are victims of it -- but the Conservatives aren't lamenting manufacturing job losses as much as they're committed to creating jobs in other sectors. Doesn't that make sense -- to open ourselves up to fields where we can be leaders and competitive?
We're never going to go back to the days where GM and Ford and their feeder companies make up a huge portion of the labour force of Ontario -- we need innovation. We don't need leaders who are looking wistfully to yesterday -- we need people who can focus on the future. Yes, manufacturing jobs have been lost -- but more and different jobs are being created and there are new strategies for job retraining. Maybe you won't have all the union perqs but it's a far brighter future than trying to reach back for something that's long gone to another country that can do it much, much cheaper.
The Liberals and NDP have to start living in today's world. The corporate 'tax cuts' or the NDP derides? What about all the corporate welfare that's been happening in the auto sector and for Bombardier -- that's okay? Yes, yes it is. Just like it's okay to get abortions in private clinics but not MRIs -- because one is politically correct and the other not. One pleases a particular interest group, the other not -- but corporate tax cuts are not gifts to the devil as Jack would have you believe.
What Jack fails to grasp -- or grasps but hopes the ABCers don't, is that it's the corporations who create and maintain jobs. If they don't like the tax laws, they ain't staying. It's a buyers market. They can shop around for the best tax deals and if those deals happen to be in Mexico or China or Wisconsin -- those corporations aren't going to give a damn about your family, your mortgage, your car payments. Business is business -- a favourable tax climate for business is a good thing -- which is why Jim Flaherty said that Ontario is the last place companies would want to invest -- the tax burden on the business doesn't make it profitable -- WHY SHOULD THEY COME and WHY SHOULD THEY STAY?
If we want companies to invest here, we have to make it worth their while. Dalton, Dion and Layton don't get that.
If you're voting 'not Conservative' because you think that's going to help the arts -- then think again. Did any of you read the National Post editorial that detailed some of the benefactors of 'arts funding'? According to the Post, advertising companies receive the largest portion of 'arts funding'. So, you get to give money to the government, who hands it to the ad company, who creates and ad to get you to buy their product with what little money you have left after you've given so generously to the taxman. And this is what you believe in?
I never used to believe that very many people defined themselves as 'not American' rather than putting any real thought into what it meant to be a Canadian. Why would anyone define themselves as 'not something'. Most of us know that to be Canadian holds special significance -- it means respect for authority, listening politely to the other guy but thinking independently. It means being ready to stand up for what's right and having the muscle to back it. Being Canadian means quiet strength, it means honesty and integrity, it means seeing the whole picture -- not just the few pixels we ourselves inhabit. In my opinion, the Conservatives -- even with their decidedly unconservative tilt since forming government -- best represent Canadian values and they are prepared to define themselves, rather than rant that at least they're not the other guy.
Stephen Harper isn't perfect and the Conservative Party platform falls far short of what most conservatives would prefer. Far from being ultra-right wing, the Conservatives have pulled the party left because they are seeing the whole picture, and are calmly leading into future. Harper showed quiet strength at the debates and he's showing it each day throughout this campaign. I'm surprised at his patience in the face of some of the vile comments and insults that have been hurled at him.
What does Anybody else have to offer? Oh yeah. 'Vote for me because I'm not him and I'm also not American or George Bush.' They are defining themselves by what they are not -- 'not Conservative'. All that really means is they are not prepared to move forward -- they are still looking back to a global economy that no longer exists and to three elections ago when Canadians didn't know who Stephen Harper was. They think we'll be swayed by dark, shadowy images flashing across our television screens. The Liberal team is banking on us not figuring it out -- if the Liberals are the fall-back guy, then they really don't have anything to offer and they hope that if they scare us enough, we won't notice.
The Liberals think we're stupid. I hope we don't prove them right on election day.
canadianna
Congratulations. That's so clever. Well, if being 'not Conservative' is your main reason for voting for 'Anybody' else, then there are a few things you might want to think about before marking that ballot.
Stephen Harper is the only leader not panicking over the economy.
Who do you want at the helm-- a harried, worried scaremonger who sees icebergs and storms in every direction and who will run us aground or scurry for the nearest port? Or a calm, rational leader whose nerves are steady enough that he can steer through the crisis, not into it?
Personally, I'd go for the level-headed guy. Fear is self-fulfilling and panic-begets-panic-begets-crisis. Harper has been navigating choppy waters without getting into a tizzy like Dion, Layton and May. If he doesn't seem empathetic enough, thank God. There's someone who's keeping his head while those around him are losing theirs. If it seems cold or unkind -- I'll take it. It means he's not being governed by fear or emotion and guess what -- that's a good thing.
If you're simply anti-Conservative because you're stuck in the 'don't scare me' frame of mind -- then you are scary because the Conservatives are the only ones looking forward on the economy instead of trying to reach back.
Call me crazy, but I'm not surprised that Canada is losing jobs in the manufacturing sector -- are you?
In global economy, first world manufacturers with their nifty benefit packages, pension plans and high hourly wages are not competitive. Thanks Buzz, Sid, Jack and your ilk for years of amazing labour negotiations that have brought us to this point. The truth hurts -- you had it great when the economy was good and now that things are going down -- you're being hit hard. It's sad and I feel for all the people who are victims of it -- but the Conservatives aren't lamenting manufacturing job losses as much as they're committed to creating jobs in other sectors. Doesn't that make sense -- to open ourselves up to fields where we can be leaders and competitive?
We're never going to go back to the days where GM and Ford and their feeder companies make up a huge portion of the labour force of Ontario -- we need innovation. We don't need leaders who are looking wistfully to yesterday -- we need people who can focus on the future. Yes, manufacturing jobs have been lost -- but more and different jobs are being created and there are new strategies for job retraining. Maybe you won't have all the union perqs but it's a far brighter future than trying to reach back for something that's long gone to another country that can do it much, much cheaper.
The Liberals and NDP have to start living in today's world. The corporate 'tax cuts' or the NDP derides? What about all the corporate welfare that's been happening in the auto sector and for Bombardier -- that's okay? Yes, yes it is. Just like it's okay to get abortions in private clinics but not MRIs -- because one is politically correct and the other not. One pleases a particular interest group, the other not -- but corporate tax cuts are not gifts to the devil as Jack would have you believe.
What Jack fails to grasp -- or grasps but hopes the ABCers don't, is that it's the corporations who create and maintain jobs. If they don't like the tax laws, they ain't staying. It's a buyers market. They can shop around for the best tax deals and if those deals happen to be in Mexico or China or Wisconsin -- those corporations aren't going to give a damn about your family, your mortgage, your car payments. Business is business -- a favourable tax climate for business is a good thing -- which is why Jim Flaherty said that Ontario is the last place companies would want to invest -- the tax burden on the business doesn't make it profitable -- WHY SHOULD THEY COME and WHY SHOULD THEY STAY?
If we want companies to invest here, we have to make it worth their while. Dalton, Dion and Layton don't get that.
If you're voting 'not Conservative' because you think that's going to help the arts -- then think again. Did any of you read the National Post editorial that detailed some of the benefactors of 'arts funding'? According to the Post, advertising companies receive the largest portion of 'arts funding'. So, you get to give money to the government, who hands it to the ad company, who creates and ad to get you to buy their product with what little money you have left after you've given so generously to the taxman. And this is what you believe in?
I never used to believe that very many people defined themselves as 'not American' rather than putting any real thought into what it meant to be a Canadian. Why would anyone define themselves as 'not something'. Most of us know that to be Canadian holds special significance -- it means respect for authority, listening politely to the other guy but thinking independently. It means being ready to stand up for what's right and having the muscle to back it. Being Canadian means quiet strength, it means honesty and integrity, it means seeing the whole picture -- not just the few pixels we ourselves inhabit. In my opinion, the Conservatives -- even with their decidedly unconservative tilt since forming government -- best represent Canadian values and they are prepared to define themselves, rather than rant that at least they're not the other guy.
Stephen Harper isn't perfect and the Conservative Party platform falls far short of what most conservatives would prefer. Far from being ultra-right wing, the Conservatives have pulled the party left because they are seeing the whole picture, and are calmly leading into future. Harper showed quiet strength at the debates and he's showing it each day throughout this campaign. I'm surprised at his patience in the face of some of the vile comments and insults that have been hurled at him.
What does Anybody else have to offer? Oh yeah. 'Vote for me because I'm not him and I'm also not American or George Bush.' They are defining themselves by what they are not -- 'not Conservative'. All that really means is they are not prepared to move forward -- they are still looking back to a global economy that no longer exists and to three elections ago when Canadians didn't know who Stephen Harper was. They think we'll be swayed by dark, shadowy images flashing across our television screens. The Liberal team is banking on us not figuring it out -- if the Liberals are the fall-back guy, then they really don't have anything to offer and they hope that if they scare us enough, we won't notice.
The Liberals think we're stupid. I hope we don't prove them right on election day.
canadianna
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Local candidate has bangs and glasses!!!
Breaking news -- The woman on the right is running for the Liberals in the GTA -- and it isn't Sarah Palin. Would you have realized that if I hadn't told you? And guess what? She has bangs and glasses and a smile and apparently -- that's enough to get her free publicity from CityTV.In the news item titled: Local Candidate Bears Uncanny Resemblance To Sarah Palin we're told of the remarkable similarities (and of course the stark hair colour and political differences) between the two women.
"It's absolutely uncanny," says a member of the CityTv news staff who has too much time and too little to think about. "She has ears, nose and a chin too. They could be twins. Even their first names start with the same letter. It's enough to just give you chills."
Apparently, someone got paid to think this up and write about it.
canadianna
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Stop picking on Stephane Dion!
Or he'll stamp his feet and cry!!!
Poor, poor, Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper is picking on him.
The Prime Minister suggested that Dion's attitude about the economy is tantamount to cheering for a recession. Here are a few quotes from Dion after the stock market crisis and some follow up from experts, sometimes in the same article:
And then:
Note that two men who know a little bit about economics say that our economy is holding steady. The voice of dissent comes from Stephane Dion. It could even be argued that the man is almost hopeful of a recession, just to prove his point.
Again, Dion says recession, deficit and two experts say not. Is Harper wrong to think Dion almost seems hopeful that the economy will plunge in order to prove his own hypothesis?
One could almost forgive M. Dion for his fallacious belief that all one had to do to become Prime Minister of Canada was to don the red banner, point at the people in blue and scoff, but his reaction to criticism is to whine. Not very becoming of a man who hopes to lead the nation.
It seems inconceivable to Stephane Dion that anyone would question his policies, his demeanour, his strategy of predicting economic decline in order to boost his own fortunes. Instead of trying to justify any of those things, he becomes shrill and childish and blames those who would challenge his narrow world vision.
canadianna
Poor, poor, Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper is picking on him.
The Prime Minister suggested that Dion's attitude about the economy is tantamount to cheering for a recession. Here are a few quotes from Dion after the stock market crisis and some follow up from experts, sometimes in the same article:
But Dion said as badly as the U.S. has performed economically, Canada has done worse and lays the blame for that at the feet of the Prime Minister.
Dion, while in St. John's, Nfld., said that Harper's economic formula is one that will land Canada in a deep recession.
"Their (the U.S.) first six months have been better than ours in terms of economic growth," Dion said.
"(Harper) made bad choices in the way he spends. He spent more than any other government before him," he said. "We've got to stop going in the direction that Mr. Harper is sending us and that is deficit and recession."
Seems to me that Dion is happy to interprets Harper's policies as 'sending us into a recession.'Harper urged "a more sober analysis" of the global economic woes.
People should not "turn to complete doom and gloom" scenarios, Harper said at a Monday news conference.
The Toronto Star, September 15
And then:
"The Canadian market fundamentals are still solid . . . ," (Industry association president Calvin Lindberg) said, echoing the reassurance about the health of the overall economy issued earlier in the day by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"The Canadian economy's fundamentals are solid," Harper said, stressing that Canada is in better shape that the U.S. to withstand the current financial turmoil and suggesting that the worst of the crisis has already passed. "Our household sector, our government sector, and our financial institutions have solid economic fundamentals."
However, Liberal opposition leader Stephane Dion charged that were it not for the policies of the minority Conservative government, the economy would have been in better shape to withstand the U.S. slump.
"The difficulties in the United States are something we worry about," Dion said, adding "bad choices" by the government have resulted in economic growth being weaker in Canada this year than in the United States.
While most indicators - especially job growth and housing market sales, prices and construction - have been much stronger in Canada than in the U.S., overall levels of economic growth have been stronger there than here - with Canada's economy barely skirting a technical recession of back-to-back quarterly contractions in total output of goods and services and an actual decline in the first half of the year.
The Vancouver Sun, September 15
Note that two men who know a little bit about economics say that our economy is holding steady. The voice of dissent comes from Stephane Dion. It could even be argued that the man is almost hopeful of a recession, just to prove his point.
There's Dion, suggesting that Canada's headed for recession and it sounds like it would suit him fine. After all, it fits right into the clever and witty "Harpernomics" line. Is Harper really wrong for suggesting that he's practically drooling, hoping for a downturn on Harper's watch?As the U.S. economy slipped deeper into financial turmoil Monday, Dion cast the Conservative economic plan as an anchor that has dragged Canadians to the brink of recession.
Dion blamed Harper for doing little to protect Canada from the looming economic downturn.
"Stephen Harper has allowed what was a booming economy to hit a brick wall," Dion said.
"Stephen Harper governs for the next day, the next poll. He wants to buy your vote with gimmicks for the next election."
The Liberals have also targeted the Conservative government's economic record in a new TV ad they dubbed "Harpernomics."
The Toronto Star, September 16
"He spent a lot, he has no direction and we are close to a deficit and close to
a recession," Dion said.
(...)
"The federal government has entered the 2008-2009 fiscal year with pretty solid momentum at least in the early stages of the year that momentum has continued," said Derek Burelton, an economist with TD Bank Financial Group.
"I think the numbers coming in so far this year suggest that the surplus is declining but we're not looking into an immediate return into deficit."
The GST cut has robbed the government coffers of around $12 billion a year, a move that has subtracted significantly from excess surpluses, Burelton said.
"We're still in surplus territory. No doubt the GST cut has eaten into that," Burelton said.
However, he said, the federal government is benefiting greatly from greater revenue from taxes in the resource sector despite the fact that commodity prices have fallen.
The Tories are projecting a $2.3-billion surplus this fiscal year and $1.3 billion for the next, down from the $10.2-billion surplus for the 2007-08 fiscal year.
Dale Orr, managing director of Global Insight Canada, believes those are conservative estimates and has predicted a $4 billion to $5 billion surplus for this fiscal year.
"There's not much chance of a deficit this year," Orr said.
Orr said the tax base continues to grow more rapidly than was forecast in the budget, offsetting the softening economy. Also, interest rates are lower than predicted, which provides some relief on debt charges.
As well, the government has not included in its forecast the $44 billion collected in Ottawa's auction of wireless airwaves. Orr said many believe the Conservatives will budget 10 per cent of that revenue to be used for over the next 10 years, meaning an extra $400 million of revenue will be coming for the current fiscal year.
Mark Gollom, CBC Reality Check, September 15
Again, Dion says recession, deficit and two experts say not. Is Harper wrong to think Dion almost seems hopeful that the economy will plunge in order to prove his own hypothesis?
One could almost forgive M. Dion for his fallacious belief that all one had to do to become Prime Minister of Canada was to don the red banner, point at the people in blue and scoff, but his reaction to criticism is to whine. Not very becoming of a man who hopes to lead the nation.
It seems inconceivable to Stephane Dion that anyone would question his policies, his demeanour, his strategy of predicting economic decline in order to boost his own fortunes. Instead of trying to justify any of those things, he becomes shrill and childish and blames those who would challenge his narrow world vision.
The man has a persecution complex. Politics is a blood sport and Dion seems to bruise easily. Maybe he should stick to what he's good at -- maybe fishing or saving the universe.
canadianna
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Dion's brilliant -- May? Not so much
Most of the criticism of the Grit-Green deal in Central Nova is aimed at Stephane Dion, but that guy is one shrewd operator. In one fell swoop he eliminates the competition, while giving the appearance of having only altruistic motivations.
Clever.
The same can't be said of Elizabeth May.
The Green Party sees itself as centrist. It stands left on most environmental and social issues, and mostly right fiscally. It also sees itself as a fresh alternative to the 'big three' mainstream parties.
That's all gone now.
Elizabeth May has done a lot of damage to her party. Her message to Greens and prospective Greens is that the vision of the Party, the long-term aims that were just starting to be taken seriously -- those goals, those ideals -- are secondary to beating/humiliating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. She's giving up on Green.
At a time when the Greens have seen their best showing in an election and have been the beneficiary of the election laws that augment their coffers for each vote, the Greens should have been prepared for the next election as being their break-through chance. The environment is their issue, and it's hot. They could be setting the agenda. Instead, it will likely be their demise.
Stephane Dion supported Elizabeth May in her bid to participate in the Leadership Debate. Although without a seat in Parliament it is unlikely she would have been allowed, she has just blown the opportunity of receiving scads of free publicity come election time. Her fight to join the leadership debate would have been the chance to get her message out during an election. It would have been a free vehicle to headlines. And she traded it in for a chance to lose, while being endorsed by a Liberal. What an idiot.
Dion is laughing. He's just neutralized his enemy. So what if there's no Liberal in Central Nova -- there's no Green in the Leadership Debate.
canadianna
Clever.
The same can't be said of Elizabeth May.
The Green Party sees itself as centrist. It stands left on most environmental and social issues, and mostly right fiscally. It also sees itself as a fresh alternative to the 'big three' mainstream parties.
That's all gone now.
Elizabeth May has done a lot of damage to her party. Her message to Greens and prospective Greens is that the vision of the Party, the long-term aims that were just starting to be taken seriously -- those goals, those ideals -- are secondary to beating/humiliating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. She's giving up on Green.
At a time when the Greens have seen their best showing in an election and have been the beneficiary of the election laws that augment their coffers for each vote, the Greens should have been prepared for the next election as being their break-through chance. The environment is their issue, and it's hot. They could be setting the agenda. Instead, it will likely be their demise.
Stephane Dion supported Elizabeth May in her bid to participate in the Leadership Debate. Although without a seat in Parliament it is unlikely she would have been allowed, she has just blown the opportunity of receiving scads of free publicity come election time. Her fight to join the leadership debate would have been the chance to get her message out during an election. It would have been a free vehicle to headlines. And she traded it in for a chance to lose, while being endorsed by a Liberal. What an idiot.
Dion is laughing. He's just neutralized his enemy. So what if there's no Liberal in Central Nova -- there's no Green in the Leadership Debate.
canadianna
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Threat? Interference? Blackmail?
These are some of the words being used to describe Harper's statement prior to the Quebec election that it is: "necessary to have a federalist government in Quebec" in order to proceed with promised reforms, such as dealing with the fiscal imbalance.
Should he have said it during the election campaign?
Why not?
Why pretend that if Quebec had elected a separatist party provincially, that the federal government should or would deal with that party in the same manner as with a federalist party?
Much of the problem around Quebec is the way we skirt around the issues. I don't like that Harper threw so much money at Quebec (and Ontario) at the expense of others -- but how does one take offense at honesty? The timing? Like Quebeckers aren't smart enough to realize that a strong vote for the Bloc in a federal election can be construed as a 'protest' and not an endorsement of separatism, whereas a strong PQ provincial vote is less likely to seem that way to the feds.
Harper stated a fact. Was he trying to 'influence' voters? Maybe, but I doubt it. Harper is aware that most Quebeckers are far more savvy about their politics than most people in the rest of the country. He wasn't telling them anything that they didn't already know.
canadianna
Should he have said it during the election campaign?
Why not?
Why pretend that if Quebec had elected a separatist party provincially, that the federal government should or would deal with that party in the same manner as with a federalist party?
Much of the problem around Quebec is the way we skirt around the issues. I don't like that Harper threw so much money at Quebec (and Ontario) at the expense of others -- but how does one take offense at honesty? The timing? Like Quebeckers aren't smart enough to realize that a strong vote for the Bloc in a federal election can be construed as a 'protest' and not an endorsement of separatism, whereas a strong PQ provincial vote is less likely to seem that way to the feds.
Harper stated a fact. Was he trying to 'influence' voters? Maybe, but I doubt it. Harper is aware that most Quebeckers are far more savvy about their politics than most people in the rest of the country. He wasn't telling them anything that they didn't already know.
canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)