Is a treaty or a promise made by a government, binding on successive governments?
Apparently, the Liberals don't think so -- Paul Martin's Liberals, who ran on a promise to scrap NAFTA, are now worried about Stephen Harper's commitment to scrap Kyoto -- because he's concerned about Canada's world image. The fact that Martin and the Liberals reneged on this election promise is irrelevant. He believed that deals signed under a previous government were open to renegotiation or reversal -- decisions made by governments are not written in stone.
Paul Martin was also part of the team that promised to scrap a the previous government's helicopter deal -- the cancellation penalty of $500,000,000 was taken from the military budget -- not general revenue. Taxpayers will have to pay the increased cost for replacement helicopters, which still haven't been delivered despite the Sea Kings being 13 years older and more decrepit than they were back then. Martin felt no obligation to honour an existing contract then -- even when it was financially imprudent to cancel.
The same Party that tore up the agreement for an essential tool for our military is bleating that the Conservatives will scrap a daycare scheme which will cost billions of dollars and benefit less than 20% of children.
The interesting thing about the Liberal plan is that it is modelled on the Quebec $7/day daycare plan(which costs considerably more than $7/day to run) -- but while the Liberals have said they will create more spaces, I haven't heard anything about it being more affordable (like the Quebec $7/day plan) Could it be that they didn't negotiate this part of the plan with the provinces -- so they have no idea how much parents will be charged?
The big red book of doom says that the essential principles of their daycare scheme are QUAD principles 'Quality, Universally inclusive, Accessible and Developmental'. So the 'A' doesn't stand for affordable. Some plan. They're transferringg money to the provinces and calling it a child care plan. At least with the Conservative policy, Quebeckers will only have to fork over $10 a week for their full-time childcare arrangements instead of $35, because they'll get the other $25 directly from Ottawa under Harper. With Martin's plan, who exactly is better off except maybe bureaucrats and daycare workers who will now be under the government employee umbrella?
Martin scarcely keeps his own promises, and even those he has kept are not kept in a timely fashion. Yet, he blusters about Stephen Harper's plans and pretends that Harper's decision to follow the Conservative's platform, rather than maintaining the status quo and enacting all of Martin's plans, is shocking.
Paul Martin is so arrogant as to think a Liberal signature renders something holy and untouchable.
His habit of keeping most of the wrong promises and breaking most of the right ones makes his indignant act even more comical.
However this week turns out, I can't wait until it's over.
canadianna
Monday, January 16, 2006
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Whose values are these, anyway?
Paul Martin has framed this election as question of vision and values, which begs the question -- what are Canadian values?
A nation displays its values most specifically and most obviously through its laws. The things we ask our governors to enshrine in legislation are the things we believe are important. Our national character doesn't grow from legislation, legislation is derived from our national character.
Paul Martin says the 'fundamental difference' between him and Stephen Harper is that Stephen Harper's values coincide more closely with the 'far right' in the US than anyone in Canada. Martin believes that there is but one vision of Canada, and he is the arbiter.
The first negative ad in this election campaign aired on December 2nd. Bardish Chagger, Liberal, said:
When the power structure of society believes it has endowed 'people and minorities' with rights, it seems unlikely that the actions of those in power will reflect the values of the people they supposedly represent. More accurately, they see themselves as the purveyors of Canadian values, and maybe as they have anticipated, public opinion has actually followed their lead.
The following is a sampling of Canadian values as defined by the Liberal hierarchy:
canadianna
A nation displays its values most specifically and most obviously through its laws. The things we ask our governors to enshrine in legislation are the things we believe are important. Our national character doesn't grow from legislation, legislation is derived from our national character.
Paul Martin says the 'fundamental difference' between him and Stephen Harper is that Stephen Harper's values coincide more closely with the 'far right' in the US than anyone in Canada. Martin believes that there is but one vision of Canada, and he is the arbiter.
"“I don't believe that Canada was built on American conservative values,"” said the Prime Minister. "“It was built on compassion, on generosity, on sharing and understanding."The implication is, of course, that compassion, generosity, sharing and understanding are antipathic to American values, to conservative values and to Canadians who share their values -- particularly when a Christian Republican lives in the White House.
The first negative ad in this election campaign aired on December 2nd. Bardish Chagger, Liberal, said:
"(the Liberals) allow Canadians to express their voices and they provide rights to people and to minorities that otherwise would not be granted rights."The governing party of Canada believes and promotes the idea that they are responsible for its citizens having rights -- which implies that these rights don't exist outside the framework of their governance. The Liberals argue that they doubt the Conservatives would preserve, protect, or recognise our rights, but that is both ignorance and arrogance. Conservatives have a long history preferringing smaller, less intrusive government and of valuing individual over collective rights.
When the power structure of society believes it has endowed 'people and minorities' with rights, it seems unlikely that the actions of those in power will reflect the values of the people they supposedly represent. More accurately, they see themselves as the purveyors of Canadian values, and maybe as they have anticipated, public opinion has actually followed their lead.
The following is a sampling of Canadian values as defined by the Liberal hierarchy:
- Marriage is a legal recognition of commitment of people who copulate and are financially inter-dependentant. Number and gender, irrelevant.
- Human life begins when a full-term baby takes its first breath outside the womb, or when a pre-term fetus is wanted by its host.
- Paying other countries money in exchange for not reducing our greenhouse gas emissions means we are doing something about the environment.
- Elected representatives should not be able to put any limits on rights or freedoms. Rights are whatever the Supreme Court of Canada says they are - their opinion supersedes the Constitution.
- Supreme Court Justices should not be subject to a serious vetting process because we implicitly trust the governing party to do the right thing. Nine people, in a country of 30 million should make all rights and freedoms determinations.
- All laws passed by elected representatives should be subject to the approval of a Senate, comprised of political appointees whose credentials are not subject to public scrutiny or confirmation. At least some of these Senators should give up their seats in the House of Commons if they involved in scandal, so that someone better could run in their riding.
- Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will prevent crime. We are just one break-in away from a murder. We are also one drawer pull away from murder. Maybe we should ban steak knives too.
- Health care is free. No one should be allowed to receive diagnosis or treatment from a 'for-profit' facility. Health care is free, but Canadians should not be free to opt out of the public system.
- Tax cuts are only good when Liberals propose them. Conservatives are mean, therefore the tax cuts they propose aren't nice and won't benefit anyone.
- De-criminalizing marijuana will reduce crime because government can control it and criminals only deal marijuana, not crystal meth, crack or cocaine.
- National unity can and should be bought.
- There is no Canadian. We are a nation of nations. We are a nation of minorities. The majority is a tyranny (and must be conservative).
canadianna
I have changed one word. 'displays' used to be 'defines'. A commenter questioned the statement's original form, and he was right. We don't define ourself through the constraints we put on our society, but legislation is an outward indication of our priorities or values. I've changed the word to clarify the thought --canadianna
Friday, January 13, 2006
No wonder people are cynical
The Liberals have promised a $250,000 cash pay out to families of first responders who die on the job, retroactive to January 2005.
Today's press release says that they will provide a tax deduction to cover the costs of clothing and training, and spend $140 million over five years for the Canadian National Exercise Program and the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program. They also plan to provide $10 million over five years toward the establishment of a centre within Statistics Canada to collect, analyze, publish and disseminate information related to Canada’s first responders.
None of this is in their Platform (pdf).
How are they going to pay for all these things for which they have not budgeted? The Liberals have no focus and no direction. They condemn Harper for saying he won't honour many of the promises the government made when they were in their gasping days, and yet they continue to make more unscheduled, uncosted promises.
UPDATE-- Stephen Taylor posts about this same issue, but mentions an interesting fact of which I was unaware. (1:51 p.m.)
canadianna
Today's press release says that they will provide a tax deduction to cover the costs of clothing and training, and spend $140 million over five years for the Canadian National Exercise Program and the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program. They also plan to provide $10 million over five years toward the establishment of a centre within Statistics Canada to collect, analyze, publish and disseminate information related to Canada’s first responders.
None of this is in their Platform (pdf).
How are they going to pay for all these things for which they have not budgeted? The Liberals have no focus and no direction. They condemn Harper for saying he won't honour many of the promises the government made when they were in their gasping days, and yet they continue to make more unscheduled, uncosted promises.
UPDATE-- Stephen Taylor posts about this same issue, but mentions an interesting fact of which I was unaware. (1:51 p.m.)
canadianna
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Defending Stephen Harper
Conservatives are scary. Everyone knows it. They're fanatical, radical, evangelical . . . or not.
But what do the facts matter in politics.
Just like there are fanatical, radical, evangelical conservatives, there are also fanatical, radical, evangelical socialists. Our country has been run by the latter for the better part of 40 years, so it is not entirely unreasonable that a couple of generations of Canadian children have grown up without ever understanding that there is a middle ground -- and that in many ways, especially recently, it is the Conservative Party of Canada that holds that middle ground.
Just like 2004, Paul Martin is using this election to attack my values and tell me that I don't belong. He's aiming his vitriol at Stephen Harper, but most of what he says applies to me as well and since the shoe fits . . .
We have been challenged by NDP Nadine, a sometimes commenter on this blog, to defend or justify some of the concerns of people who still 'fear' Harper. Here is her comment:
A Conservative government would be excruciatingly aware of the implicit mistrust held by some people, for no other reason than that they are Conservative. This would no doubt compel them to act in such a way to dispel the fears of that 'frightened' minority who react, rather than think. The party would likely end up moving even further left, causing disenchantment to traditional conservative voters, but likely still not pleasing liberal ones.
I'll answer what I know, or what I believe I can explain, but we all know that those answers will never satisfy those whose political philosophy is diametrically opposed to mine.
The US wanted no money. They didn't ask our permission. They said, 'we're doing this and it might affect you -- you're welcome to sit in on the planning'. We stomped our feet and ran away.
Stephen Harper's personal opinion, and the opinion of the Conservative Party are entirely irrelevant to missile defense -- just as Paul Martin's and Jack Layton's are. But Stephen Harper would have us aware of what was going on instead of shut out and uninformed.
"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.'' (Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 11, 2003)
"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25, 2002)
"What Mr. Day said was a position I agree with which is Canada should be part of the pre-deployment exercise because Canada should be working with British, Americans and other allies to ensure maximum pressure is exerted on Saddam Hussein so he understands he must disarm." (Stephen Harper, Media scrum, January 28, 2003)
"Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took." (Stephen Harper, Maclean's, August 25, 2003)
There is only one quote where Harper implies we should have been fighting in Iraq. It could be read that he meant metaphorically. I really don't know because I've never read the context of the quote. The rest are philosophical responses. I often hear and read that 'Harper voted to send troops to Iraq'. There was never a vote on whether Canada should send troops to Iraq. The question before the House was whether we supported the United States and the other members of their coalition in their plan to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not comply with the UN Resolutions, and disarm.
It could be argued that if Canada had voted 'yes' to support the American position, that Saddam might have taken a serious look at complying. We consider ourselves 'peacemakers' and pride ourselves on the belief that other nations look to us for moral authority or guidance. Our refusal to acknowledge that the United States had legitimate grounds to invade Iraq and was willing to shoulder a burden that the United Nations had shirked, gave credibility to Saddam's position that he didn't have to comply. Our 'yes' vote, supporting the US position, would have brought more pressure to bear on Saddam and on the world community to take the US concerns seriously.
There was never a question of our troops going to Iraq -- but if we'd had enough of them, Paul Martin implied he would have sent them.
A social safety net should be available for the protection of Canadians, and Harper and the Conservatives have agreed to maintain and in some cases, increase this 'net'.
The Liberals pretend there is only one, universal health care system in Canada. The NDP accepts that private care exists, and wants the government to legislate it out of existence. The Conservatives accept that it exists, and have decided to find a way to make it work for the citizens.
Outlawing private care would take away a fundamental freedom under the Charter. It would deny our right of security of person. The Conservatives say that we as citizens deserve choice when it comes to private matters like health care. They know the rich already have choice, and their plan says that if the public system can't serve us in a timely manner, we have the right to receive health care at a private clinic -- paid for by the government. The NDP doesn't seem to have a problem when it's private abortion clinics being publicly funded -- why the difficulty when it comes to hip replacements?
Conservatives in general, believe that social safety nets can become self-perpetuating. You have a system that keeps existing because -- well, if you build it, they will come. Canadian conservatives understand that there are certain social programmes which are entrenched in the Canadian psyche and they, like other Canadians are okay with that. In fact, most Canadian conservatives would not want to change it because they are aware that the private sector has not been expected to play a big role in support systems and has not developed as a partner. The Conservatives are looking to expand the private sector role in some areas like child care, because it is in the interest of the private sector to have a workforce that is prepared and productive. Providing daycare for their employees, benefits both employers and workers -- and it ensures that the government doesn't simply create another bloated bureaucracy.
Conservatives also understand that Canadians have more expectations of government than say, the United States. In the US, private foundations build and fund universities, they build and fund libraries, they build and fund hospitals. Here we look to government and the Conservatives will continue to fund those things Canadians have come to expect. You might not like the sound of it, but that makes us more of a socialist state.
I will say this: You think it's a human rights issue. I don't. Therefore, anything I say about it is automatically wrong as far as you're concerned.
There is no chance of a country like Canada going back to the days where homosexuality is outlawed, but I fear the day will come when expressing the opinion that gay marriage is wrong, will be outlawed. All citizens have rights, not just minorities. Too often when we think of rights in Canada we think of 'minority rights' but if, as Paul Martin says, we are a nation of minorities, then our rights should be equal -- all of us being minorities of one sort or another. Don't get me started on the 'tyranny of the majority' -- that phrase is an insult to all Canadians.
As for 'a woman's right to choose' -- much to the consternation of many conservatives, the Conservative party voted against putting forward any legislation (from the government or the backbenches). The Liberal Party has no such policy.
People often believe that the Canadian equivalent of the Republican Party is the Conservative Party. Typically, ideologically, that's correct, but in reality it's plain wrong. Our Conservatives are far more left wing than American Democrats. Even the Reform Party was not the peer of the Republicans, because it was a populist party.
The speech that Stephen Harper made (you know, the ultra secret one that has been available for a few years now) was made in 1997. The non-threatening Bob Dole was the most recent Republican leader -- having lost the election to Bill Clinton in 1996. George Bush was only three years into his term of Governor -- and wasn't even a gleam in the eye of the federal Republicans.
Harper was watching the Canadian conservative movement fail. The Progressive Conservative Party had been decimated in the election of 1993, and the Reform Party was still a 'western rump'. It was in that situation that he told American conservatives that their conservative movement was an inspiration. He also said that America was a light and inspiration to the world and although some Canadians might dispute this -- it is a fact - -world wide, people want to live the 'American Dream'. They might romanticise it, the obviously idealize it, but they also aspire to it. Harper was right.
Wanting a better relationship with the United States makes sense. Not only are they our largest trading partner -- we should want it to remain so. Increasing trade with China simply because we've alienated the Americans might seem like good policy to the Liberals, but China is a communist state, still perpetrating human rights abuses. Both China and India have a lower standard of living and pay their workers far less than Canadian workers make. Their markets might be larger, but their costs are also less. Maintaining civility with our neighbour is essential.
The quote the Liberals left out of Harper's speech to the American group was this:
Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. -- (Stephen Harper in his scary speech.)
That's it. Still scared?
I've said this before about Harper: Harper appeals to me. He's a thinking woman's kind of guy. You know he's safe. He'd probably never raise his voice, let alone hit someone. He doesn't cheat on his wife; I'd bet he helps tuck in the kids at night -- and makes every effort to do the right thing so he'll be a good example for them. And he's smart, and he's funny, and private. These qualities are the kind of qualities adult women look for in a man. It's teens and twenties who look for the charm and 'charisma'. Maturity looks for decency and Harper is the personification.
Disagree with Stephen Harper. Believe that his policies will not benefit our country. Believe that his platform does not benefit you -- but these 'scary' accusations just don't hold water and they are offensive to everyone who believes there is a political alternative to socialism and corruption.
canadianna
But what do the facts matter in politics.
Just like there are fanatical, radical, evangelical conservatives, there are also fanatical, radical, evangelical socialists. Our country has been run by the latter for the better part of 40 years, so it is not entirely unreasonable that a couple of generations of Canadian children have grown up without ever understanding that there is a middle ground -- and that in many ways, especially recently, it is the Conservative Party of Canada that holds that middle ground.
Just like 2004, Paul Martin is using this election to attack my values and tell me that I don't belong. He's aiming his vitriol at Stephen Harper, but most of what he says applies to me as well and since the shoe fits . . .
We have been challenged by NDP Nadine, a sometimes commenter on this blog, to defend or justify some of the concerns of people who still 'fear' Harper. Here is her comment:
This 'scared' thing really offends me. My political philosophy might differ from yours, but that does not make it scary. We live in a democratic country where elections are mandatory, where rights are spelled out in the Charter and when there is doubt, there are mechanisms to address wrongs and injustices. None of that will suddenly change under a Conservative government -- minority or majority. Probably less so than it did under successive Liberal governments. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest, or to be ignorant. You'll have to choose for yourself.I have yet to see on a Tory blog a reasonable response by Harper about things he said in his past . . . What is his agenda exactly? Gordon O'Connor admitted on Mike Duffy that the Conservatives have no problem with missile defense. What's next, troops in Iraq? So I invite Conservative bloggers to try and sway me on Harper by addressing legitimate concerns raised by the Liberal ads. Issues like BMD, Iraq, his campaign contributions during the Alliance leadership race, social safety net, minority rights, friendship with the Republican and other right wing groups etc. And please don't resort to patriotism or hyperbole, I'd like concrete answers. RIght now, I'm quite scared and I know others are too!
A Conservative government would be excruciatingly aware of the implicit mistrust held by some people, for no other reason than that they are Conservative. This would no doubt compel them to act in such a way to dispel the fears of that 'frightened' minority who react, rather than think. The party would likely end up moving even further left, causing disenchantment to traditional conservative voters, but likely still not pleasing liberal ones.
I'll answer what I know, or what I believe I can explain, but we all know that those answers will never satisfy those whose political philosophy is diametrically opposed to mine.
What is his agenda exactly?He does have a policy book. It will be released in the next day or so and you'll see the Conservative Plan spelled out -- that is, if you haven't already figured it out through the daily policy announcements. The fact is though, you'll look at the policy book and believe it's a lie because somewhere deep down you want to believe that liberals (small l) have a lock on compassion, are the only ones who care about the little guy, the only ones who understand women and minorities -- the only kind of values you can trust. For me to go any further, when there is already so much out there available to you, is to pretend that it would really make a difference to your opinion.
The Americans are going to do missile defense whether you like it, whether I like it, or whether our government likes it or not. All Paul Martin has done by opting out, is to remove our chair at the table. We no longer have a place in the planning to say 'hey, not in my air space' or 'Canadians don't want this'. Instead, we will hear about things after they are done, and bleat and complain how the Americans acted unilaterally.Gordon O'Connor admitted on Mike Duffy that the Conservatives have no problem
with missile defense.
The US wanted no money. They didn't ask our permission. They said, 'we're doing this and it might affect you -- you're welcome to sit in on the planning'. We stomped our feet and ran away.
Stephen Harper's personal opinion, and the opinion of the Conservative Party are entirely irrelevant to missile defense -- just as Paul Martin's and Jack Layton's are. But Stephen Harper would have us aware of what was going on instead of shut out and uninformed.
Stephen Harper said many things on Iraq.What's next, troops in Iraq?
"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.'' (Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 11, 2003)
"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25, 2002)
"What Mr. Day said was a position I agree with which is Canada should be part of the pre-deployment exercise because Canada should be working with British, Americans and other allies to ensure maximum pressure is exerted on Saddam Hussein so he understands he must disarm." (Stephen Harper, Media scrum, January 28, 2003)
"Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took." (Stephen Harper, Maclean's, August 25, 2003)
There is only one quote where Harper implies we should have been fighting in Iraq. It could be read that he meant metaphorically. I really don't know because I've never read the context of the quote. The rest are philosophical responses. I often hear and read that 'Harper voted to send troops to Iraq'. There was never a vote on whether Canada should send troops to Iraq. The question before the House was whether we supported the United States and the other members of their coalition in their plan to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not comply with the UN Resolutions, and disarm.
It could be argued that if Canada had voted 'yes' to support the American position, that Saddam might have taken a serious look at complying. We consider ourselves 'peacemakers' and pride ourselves on the belief that other nations look to us for moral authority or guidance. Our refusal to acknowledge that the United States had legitimate grounds to invade Iraq and was willing to shoulder a burden that the United Nations had shirked, gave credibility to Saddam's position that he didn't have to comply. Our 'yes' vote, supporting the US position, would have brought more pressure to bear on Saddam and on the world community to take the US concerns seriously.
There was never a question of our troops going to Iraq -- but if we'd had enough of them, Paul Martin implied he would have sent them.
(H)is campaign contributions during the Alliance leadership race,I don't know, but I don't believe the Liberal implications that Harper is receiving money from some evil right-wing cabal. I tend to worry about Liberals and who's buying them, though -- so I guess we're even on this one. If anyone else knows where to get this info -- please post.
social safety net,
A social safety net should be available for the protection of Canadians, and Harper and the Conservatives have agreed to maintain and in some cases, increase this 'net'.
The Liberals pretend there is only one, universal health care system in Canada. The NDP accepts that private care exists, and wants the government to legislate it out of existence. The Conservatives accept that it exists, and have decided to find a way to make it work for the citizens.
Outlawing private care would take away a fundamental freedom under the Charter. It would deny our right of security of person. The Conservatives say that we as citizens deserve choice when it comes to private matters like health care. They know the rich already have choice, and their plan says that if the public system can't serve us in a timely manner, we have the right to receive health care at a private clinic -- paid for by the government. The NDP doesn't seem to have a problem when it's private abortion clinics being publicly funded -- why the difficulty when it comes to hip replacements?
Conservatives in general, believe that social safety nets can become self-perpetuating. You have a system that keeps existing because -- well, if you build it, they will come. Canadian conservatives understand that there are certain social programmes which are entrenched in the Canadian psyche and they, like other Canadians are okay with that. In fact, most Canadian conservatives would not want to change it because they are aware that the private sector has not been expected to play a big role in support systems and has not developed as a partner. The Conservatives are looking to expand the private sector role in some areas like child care, because it is in the interest of the private sector to have a workforce that is prepared and productive. Providing daycare for their employees, benefits both employers and workers -- and it ensures that the government doesn't simply create another bloated bureaucracy.
Conservatives also understand that Canadians have more expectations of government than say, the United States. In the US, private foundations build and fund universities, they build and fund libraries, they build and fund hospitals. Here we look to government and the Conservatives will continue to fund those things Canadians have come to expect. You might not like the sound of it, but that makes us more of a socialist state.
minority rights,I'm not getting into the SSM thing. Anyone who wants to, can dig through my archives and find all I've said on the matter.
I will say this: You think it's a human rights issue. I don't. Therefore, anything I say about it is automatically wrong as far as you're concerned.
There is no chance of a country like Canada going back to the days where homosexuality is outlawed, but I fear the day will come when expressing the opinion that gay marriage is wrong, will be outlawed. All citizens have rights, not just minorities. Too often when we think of rights in Canada we think of 'minority rights' but if, as Paul Martin says, we are a nation of minorities, then our rights should be equal -- all of us being minorities of one sort or another. Don't get me started on the 'tyranny of the majority' -- that phrase is an insult to all Canadians.
As for 'a woman's right to choose' -- much to the consternation of many conservatives, the Conservative party voted against putting forward any legislation (from the government or the backbenches). The Liberal Party has no such policy.
friendship with the Republican and other right wing groups etc.
People often believe that the Canadian equivalent of the Republican Party is the Conservative Party. Typically, ideologically, that's correct, but in reality it's plain wrong. Our Conservatives are far more left wing than American Democrats. Even the Reform Party was not the peer of the Republicans, because it was a populist party.
The speech that Stephen Harper made (you know, the ultra secret one that has been available for a few years now) was made in 1997. The non-threatening Bob Dole was the most recent Republican leader -- having lost the election to Bill Clinton in 1996. George Bush was only three years into his term of Governor -- and wasn't even a gleam in the eye of the federal Republicans.
Harper was watching the Canadian conservative movement fail. The Progressive Conservative Party had been decimated in the election of 1993, and the Reform Party was still a 'western rump'. It was in that situation that he told American conservatives that their conservative movement was an inspiration. He also said that America was a light and inspiration to the world and although some Canadians might dispute this -- it is a fact - -world wide, people want to live the 'American Dream'. They might romanticise it, the obviously idealize it, but they also aspire to it. Harper was right.
Wanting a better relationship with the United States makes sense. Not only are they our largest trading partner -- we should want it to remain so. Increasing trade with China simply because we've alienated the Americans might seem like good policy to the Liberals, but China is a communist state, still perpetrating human rights abuses. Both China and India have a lower standard of living and pay their workers far less than Canadian workers make. Their markets might be larger, but their costs are also less. Maintaining civility with our neighbour is essential.
The quote the Liberals left out of Harper's speech to the American group was this:
Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. -- (Stephen Harper in his scary speech.)
That's it. Still scared?
I've said this before about Harper: Harper appeals to me. He's a thinking woman's kind of guy. You know he's safe. He'd probably never raise his voice, let alone hit someone. He doesn't cheat on his wife; I'd bet he helps tuck in the kids at night -- and makes every effort to do the right thing so he'll be a good example for them. And he's smart, and he's funny, and private. These qualities are the kind of qualities adult women look for in a man. It's teens and twenties who look for the charm and 'charisma'. Maturity looks for decency and Harper is the personification.
Disagree with Stephen Harper. Believe that his policies will not benefit our country. Believe that his platform does not benefit you -- but these 'scary' accusations just don't hold water and they are offensive to everyone who believes there is a political alternative to socialism and corruption.
canadianna
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Get a load of them
Back here I wondered how long before the Liberals went negative. I guessed they'd wait until after the debates were over. Drop the 's' and I pegged it.
I only mention because I seldom make predictions so I'm very happy to be correct.
What strikes me about each of the ads is their attempt to be just like us and use the common vernacular. When people who want to represent me and my interests attempt to speak my language, I resent the fact that they think I'm a dummy.
Do they think we're all eight?
I like the 'yet' part, but gosh golly, the 'wow' is not necessary. If it's really a 'wow' situation, we'll think the 'wow'; they won't have to put it in for us.
Then there's:
Seriously, they're just like us, eh?
I'm not shocked by the negativity of the ads; that was to be expected. What does surprise me is how pedantic they are. The attempt to give Harper a Hitleresque look in at least three of them (Diversity, Atlantic and one other) is just so juvenile. I bet they're still giggling.
The one they pulled about Stephen Harper using our military as his own toy soldiers was dazzling in its stupidity -- and contrary to what John Duffy tried to say on Countdown -- the ad was released. It was pulled back, but once they uploaded it to their website and circulated to the media, it's out there. Election campaigns use the media to gain free exposure for their ads. The fact that journalists questioned this one immediately gave the Liberals second thoughts about actually finding paid space for it, but it doesn't negate the fact that the ad was written, crafted, and distributed before anyone realised it just might be a tiny bit over the top.
Duffy tried to make the analogy of a draft of a memo. This was no draft. That ad was their magnum opus -- they'd have used it often and proudly if the media had remained impassive, but members of the press were disturbed by it's exploitation and portrayal of the military.
I've no doubt that some of this negative advertising might work, but these ads say a lot more about the Liberals than they do about Stephen Harper.
canadianna
I only mention because I seldom make predictions so I'm very happy to be correct.
What strikes me about each of the ads is their attempt to be just like us and use the common vernacular. When people who want to represent me and my interests attempt to speak my language, I resent the fact that they think I'm a dummy.
"No. We did not make that up. We're not allowed to make stuff up."
Do they think we're all eight?
"Wow. He's not even elected yet. And he's already running a deficit."
I like the 'yet' part, but gosh golly, the 'wow' is not necessary. If it's really a 'wow' situation, we'll think the 'wow'; they won't have to put it in for us.
Then there's:
"Seriously, that's what he said." And: "At least someone will be happy, eh?"
Seriously, they're just like us, eh?
I'm not shocked by the negativity of the ads; that was to be expected. What does surprise me is how pedantic they are. The attempt to give Harper a Hitleresque look in at least three of them (Diversity, Atlantic and one other) is just so juvenile. I bet they're still giggling.
The one they pulled about Stephen Harper using our military as his own toy soldiers was dazzling in its stupidity -- and contrary to what John Duffy tried to say on Countdown -- the ad was released. It was pulled back, but once they uploaded it to their website and circulated to the media, it's out there. Election campaigns use the media to gain free exposure for their ads. The fact that journalists questioned this one immediately gave the Liberals second thoughts about actually finding paid space for it, but it doesn't negate the fact that the ad was written, crafted, and distributed before anyone realised it just might be a tiny bit over the top.
Duffy tried to make the analogy of a draft of a memo. This was no draft. That ad was their magnum opus -- they'd have used it often and proudly if the media had remained impassive, but members of the press were disturbed by it's exploitation and portrayal of the military.
I've no doubt that some of this negative advertising might work, but these ads say a lot more about the Liberals than they do about Stephen Harper.
canadianna
Monday, January 09, 2006
Who wants to turn us into the US?
Martin's attempt to enjoin Stephen Harper to pledge to remove the wicked 'notwithstanding clause' has got to be the most bizarre thing I've seen in politics in a long time.
My only guess here is that the Liberals know Martin is going down, and they just want it done and over with -- so they give him this wild, over the top idea -- tell him 'no, really Paul. It's a good idea. The churches have enough protection. This is a sure winner.' Then they push him out into the spotlight and wait for him to sing.
What else could it be? They can't seriously believe that anyone who is paying attention will buy that this is a well thought out plan. They can't seriously think that anyone who believes in democracy believes that unelected, unaccountable judges are the best people to have the final say on the Charter -- because the only answer to that is 'it's the American way' -- and Mr. Martin doesn't want to go down that road, does he?
There has been talk of a spy in the Liberal warroom, of angry Chretienites seeking revenge, of would-be successors, knives drawn -- that has to be what happened here. They conspired against poor Paul Martin to have him self-destruct on national television.
That, or Mr. Martin and the Liberals really don't appreciate the fundamentals of our democracy. We don't have the checks and balances that the Americans do. Not in terms of our second chamber and not when it comes to vetting our judges.
Strike another one for Mr. Democratic Deficit.
I can't help but think that someone in the Liberal camp is smiling tonight.
canadianna.
My only guess here is that the Liberals know Martin is going down, and they just want it done and over with -- so they give him this wild, over the top idea -- tell him 'no, really Paul. It's a good idea. The churches have enough protection. This is a sure winner.' Then they push him out into the spotlight and wait for him to sing.
What else could it be? They can't seriously believe that anyone who is paying attention will buy that this is a well thought out plan. They can't seriously think that anyone who believes in democracy believes that unelected, unaccountable judges are the best people to have the final say on the Charter -- because the only answer to that is 'it's the American way' -- and Mr. Martin doesn't want to go down that road, does he?
There has been talk of a spy in the Liberal warroom, of angry Chretienites seeking revenge, of would-be successors, knives drawn -- that has to be what happened here. They conspired against poor Paul Martin to have him self-destruct on national television.
That, or Mr. Martin and the Liberals really don't appreciate the fundamentals of our democracy. We don't have the checks and balances that the Americans do. Not in terms of our second chamber and not when it comes to vetting our judges.
Strike another one for Mr. Democratic Deficit.
I can't help but think that someone in the Liberal camp is smiling tonight.
canadianna.
What the Liberals are talking about . . .
I originally thought that the Liberals started in on the Conservatives' promise costing because they wanted to create a sense of fear, but then they shifted from 'he's going to raise taxes' to 'they'll create a deficit'. Both create fear, but if that had been the main intention they likely would have waited until after the debates so Harper wouldn't have so public a forum during which to answer.
No, they did this in order to draw the rest of the Tory platform out early. They figured Harper would react to their criticism by revealing the whole Conservative programme immediately, just to prove them wrong. Had he responded as they predicted, it would have prevented the daily announcements which bring the Tories positive attention and stop Liberal negativity from gaining traction.
Tonight will be interesting. Martin's handlers have managed to give him a couple of days to breathe with their attacks on the Conservative financial plans, so rather than being stuttery and sputtering the way he usually is when he's put in a corner, Paul Martin will be aggressive and on the offensive.
The format lends itself to being another debate about policy and ideas, which is to the Conservatives benefit. Martin can huff and puff and pantomime his vision all he wants, but the lack of substance will be apparent. He will steer everything away from what he plans to do, to what Harper would do, because the Liberals thought they could win without a platform.
The contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals is stark. A visit to their websites shows them both, talking more about the Conservatives' platform than the Liberals'. As you look around, you find the Conservatives have all their issues laid out as they've been announced, complete with backgrounders, details and rationale. On the Liberal site you find vague promises with no elaboration, no processes set out to explain their exact intentions. As usual, they've relied on platitude over substance and fail to show any planning.
The best example of this is the Liberals' 'sure thing' -- the universal child care 'plan'. Where Harper recently detailed the Conservative plan to create 125,000 spaces, and the same information can be found on the Conservative web pages, tonight Martin will boast that the Liberals will create 250,000 daycare spaces. All anyone will have to do is ask him how they'll do that, and he'll be at a loss. There is no plan. There is no vision. That's why you won't find the Liberals talking about the Liberals on their website and in their ads.
canadianna
No, they did this in order to draw the rest of the Tory platform out early. They figured Harper would react to their criticism by revealing the whole Conservative programme immediately, just to prove them wrong. Had he responded as they predicted, it would have prevented the daily announcements which bring the Tories positive attention and stop Liberal negativity from gaining traction.
Tonight will be interesting. Martin's handlers have managed to give him a couple of days to breathe with their attacks on the Conservative financial plans, so rather than being stuttery and sputtering the way he usually is when he's put in a corner, Paul Martin will be aggressive and on the offensive.
The format lends itself to being another debate about policy and ideas, which is to the Conservatives benefit. Martin can huff and puff and pantomime his vision all he wants, but the lack of substance will be apparent. He will steer everything away from what he plans to do, to what Harper would do, because the Liberals thought they could win without a platform.
The contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals is stark. A visit to their websites shows them both, talking more about the Conservatives' platform than the Liberals'. As you look around, you find the Conservatives have all their issues laid out as they've been announced, complete with backgrounders, details and rationale. On the Liberal site you find vague promises with no elaboration, no processes set out to explain their exact intentions. As usual, they've relied on platitude over substance and fail to show any planning.
The best example of this is the Liberals' 'sure thing' -- the universal child care 'plan'. Where Harper recently detailed the Conservative plan to create 125,000 spaces, and the same information can be found on the Conservative web pages, tonight Martin will boast that the Liberals will create 250,000 daycare spaces. All anyone will have to do is ask him how they'll do that, and he'll be at a loss. There is no plan. There is no vision. That's why you won't find the Liberals talking about the Liberals on their website and in their ads.
canadianna
Sunday, January 08, 2006
So which is it?
Over the past 36 hours we have heard three distinctly different stories coming from the Liberals:
So, despite the fact that the Conservatives are going to 'increase (the) tax burden,' their promises are so expensive they won't be able to deliver on them, so they'll have to cut programmes and (or?) they would result in deficit. I guess Martin's crack team of strategists couldn't decide which scare tactic would be most effective, so they decided to throw 'em all out there and let us take our pick.The Tories will increase tax burden (CTV.ca)
Those who follow these things closely know that not implementing a planned cut in the tax rate by the out-going government is not 'raising taxes'. It is simply not keeping a promise made by someone else. Bad optics, but prudent fiscal management. The Conservative plan was costed in the several months during which they put together their platform, and based on specific numbers. A sputtering Liberal government made a flurry of promises and announcements. It isn't incumbent on Harper and his team to rewrite their tax policy based on a dying government's attempt to buy the voting public. The cut in the tax rate might well be a good thing -- but the Conservative plan should unfold as it was written -- if they were to adopt this cut in the tax rate, having not budgeted for it in their policy statements, they would be accused of not costing their platform properly.
But all that's irrelevant, because we know it's just more Liberal spin. And the other two statements strike me as utter stupidity but just to back that up -- visit Candace at Planet X.
The Liberals claim to have 'costed' the Conservative platform. So, now they're psychic. Not all of the Tory platform has been released yet - but they've had their team working away all day, crunching numbers. Sounds kind of like baking the cake before you've read the whole ingredient list.
Maybe if they spent as much time working on their own platform as they do looking over the shoulders of the Conservatives, the Liberals might actually have some original policy.
canadianna
The Liberals - a 'hair of the dog' solution?
The Liberals will fix health care.
Who broke it?
The Liberals will clean the environment.
Who ignored it?
The Liberals will cut your taxes.
Who over-taxed you?
The Liberals will establish ethics guidelines.
Who broke all the rules?
The Liberals will pay your tuition.
Who made the cost of attending university prohibitive?
The Liberals will help seniors with their savings.
Who cost seniors millions by threatening to tax Income Trusts?
The Liberals will defend our borders.
Who hasn't?
The Liberals will fight for farmers.
Who didn't?
The Liberals will save national unity.
Who continues to tear the country apart?
The Liberals will take care of your pre-schoolers.
Are you sure these are the people you want to trust with your children?
canadianna
Who broke it?
The Liberals will clean the environment.
Who ignored it?
The Liberals will cut your taxes.
Who over-taxed you?
The Liberals will establish ethics guidelines.
Who broke all the rules?
The Liberals will pay your tuition.
Who made the cost of attending university prohibitive?
The Liberals will help seniors with their savings.
Who cost seniors millions by threatening to tax Income Trusts?
The Liberals will defend our borders.
Who hasn't?
The Liberals will fight for farmers.
Who didn't?
The Liberals will save national unity.
Who continues to tear the country apart?
The Liberals will take care of your pre-schoolers.
Are you sure these are the people you want to trust with your children?
canadianna
Saturday, January 07, 2006
All citizens need tax relief
According to the most recent statistics (pdf file), over a million children in Canada live below the poverty line. Of those, over 1/4 had at least one parent in the work force full time, but with employment that didn't bring them to the income tax cut off. The rest had parents who either worked all year, but only part-time, or were on some sort of social assistance. Either way, these parents were below the Low Income Cut Off -- meaning they would not pay income tax. Many of these children live in single parent families.
So -- over a million children live in families where no income tax is paid because they live below the Low-Income Cut Off --how will the Liberal tax policy benefit them?
It won't.
An income tax cut means nothing to people who don't make enough money to pay income tax.
Not making enough to pay income tax doesn't mean that families are not working. Many are. It simply means that their wages don't reach the poverty line due to things like lack of education, lack of training, or lack of Canadian experience or due to circumstances like location and job availability.
Do you only matter to the Liberals if you earn enough to pay income taxes?
A simple 1% cut in the GST will make a real difference to these families, where a 1% cut in the lowest tax bracket and an increase of the personal exemption won't.
So why should the working poor subsidize the those who live below the income tax cut off?
They won't.
A reduction in the GST will offset any minor benefit a worker would receive from the 1% cut to the income tax rate.
Poor families -- those below the income tax cut off and those in the lowest income tax bracket -- pay monthly bills. Their expenditures vary, depending on income, but most pay utilities, telephone etc. Lower income families who have the luxury of a car, have to pay insurance. Most renters pay some sort of rental insurance. Everyone needs clothing and boots. All are subject to GST.
It surprises me that Jack Layton and the NDP are against any tax cuts, but particularly the Conservative plan which will benefit their primary constituency -- children and families living in poverty.
Some conservatives lament that Harper's plan isn't conservative enough. My understanding of fiscal conservatism insofar as taxes go, is that money belongs in the pockets of the citizens, not in government coffers. The more money the people have to do with as they choose, the better for the economy. Although income tax cuts might spur investment, a cut in a consumption tax won't discourage it, so in that sense it's neutral. Conservatives should welcome any tax reduction, especially one that benefits all Canadians, not just those above the poverty line.
Over one million children live in families below the Low Income Cut Off. These people are citizens, too. Harper's plan enables them to share in tax relief. What has Paul Martin got against that?
canadianna
So -- over a million children live in families where no income tax is paid because they live below the Low-Income Cut Off --how will the Liberal tax policy benefit them?
It won't.
An income tax cut means nothing to people who don't make enough money to pay income tax.
Not making enough to pay income tax doesn't mean that families are not working. Many are. It simply means that their wages don't reach the poverty line due to things like lack of education, lack of training, or lack of Canadian experience or due to circumstances like location and job availability.
Do you only matter to the Liberals if you earn enough to pay income taxes?
A simple 1% cut in the GST will make a real difference to these families, where a 1% cut in the lowest tax bracket and an increase of the personal exemption won't.
So why should the working poor subsidize the those who live below the income tax cut off?
They won't.
A reduction in the GST will offset any minor benefit a worker would receive from the 1% cut to the income tax rate.
Poor families -- those below the income tax cut off and those in the lowest income tax bracket -- pay monthly bills. Their expenditures vary, depending on income, but most pay utilities, telephone etc. Lower income families who have the luxury of a car, have to pay insurance. Most renters pay some sort of rental insurance. Everyone needs clothing and boots. All are subject to GST.
It surprises me that Jack Layton and the NDP are against any tax cuts, but particularly the Conservative plan which will benefit their primary constituency -- children and families living in poverty.
Some conservatives lament that Harper's plan isn't conservative enough. My understanding of fiscal conservatism insofar as taxes go, is that money belongs in the pockets of the citizens, not in government coffers. The more money the people have to do with as they choose, the better for the economy. Although income tax cuts might spur investment, a cut in a consumption tax won't discourage it, so in that sense it's neutral. Conservatives should welcome any tax reduction, especially one that benefits all Canadians, not just those above the poverty line.
Over one million children live in families below the Low Income Cut Off. These people are citizens, too. Harper's plan enables them to share in tax relief. What has Paul Martin got against that?
canadianna
Friday, January 06, 2006
What choice, Mr. Martin?
The Liberal's other new tv ad 'Choices' features Ujjal Dosanjh slamming Jack Layton for saying he'd work with Harper (which we all know isn't quite the case -- but anyway). In it he says:
Dosanjh represents a government that 'stands for the state' and myopically refuses to concede that individual choice should determine when the government will have a place in the lives of its citizens.
As it stands in this free country, we are not allowed to choose to pay for our own health care. This universal institution is not something we can choose to opt out of if we feel it is not meeting our expectations -- let alone some arbitrary bureaucratic expectations determined by the provinces.
And now the Liberal's new universal child care plan -- 'the first new social programme in 40 years.' It's another social programme that begins with a mandate to be of assistance to families and will become so entrenched in our psyche, that to consider using a childcare arrangement outside of the state purview will be deemed unCanadian.
Paul Martin criticises Harper for a 'fend for yourself' approach to social issues. He's got it wrong. Harper's is a 'decide for yourself' approach. Social safety nets are supposed to support you, not ensnare you. They should be there if you need them, should you choose to use them. They shouldn't be imposed by the state on its citizens.
Dosanjh has confirmed that the Liberals 'stand for the state'. And while they are standing for the state, standing for themselves, it is inconceivable to him that we, the citizens might have something to say about how close they stand to us.
You either believe in freedom, or you don't.
canadianna
"You either believe in universal health care, or you don't.When asked about the two new ads, Dosanjh said that the Liberals were trying to define the ballot question as one of Canadian values:
You either defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or you don't.
You either keep Canada out of Iraq, or you don't.
You either want a Harper government, or you don't."
"We stand for the state," said Dosanjh. "The state can do good in people's lives. Mr. Harper doesn't (believe that)."I suppose the multi-billion dollar ballot question is -- who decides what role the state should play in people's lives?
Dosanjh represents a government that 'stands for the state' and myopically refuses to concede that individual choice should determine when the government will have a place in the lives of its citizens.
As it stands in this free country, we are not allowed to choose to pay for our own health care. This universal institution is not something we can choose to opt out of if we feel it is not meeting our expectations -- let alone some arbitrary bureaucratic expectations determined by the provinces.
And now the Liberal's new universal child care plan -- 'the first new social programme in 40 years.' It's another social programme that begins with a mandate to be of assistance to families and will become so entrenched in our psyche, that to consider using a childcare arrangement outside of the state purview will be deemed unCanadian.
Paul Martin criticises Harper for a 'fend for yourself' approach to social issues. He's got it wrong. Harper's is a 'decide for yourself' approach. Social safety nets are supposed to support you, not ensnare you. They should be there if you need them, should you choose to use them. They shouldn't be imposed by the state on its citizens.
Dosanjh has confirmed that the Liberals 'stand for the state'. And while they are standing for the state, standing for themselves, it is inconceivable to him that we, the citizens might have something to say about how close they stand to us.
You either believe in freedom, or you don't.
canadianna
Give us your red Tories, your soft NDP & your Green
Here is the text of the new Liberal ad featuring Ujall Dosanj and David Emerson -- Get the Job Done:
BC is booming. We'll work hard to keep it that way.Did the Liberal ad really say that?
We're leading the Canadian economy in job growth.
Defending charter rights for minorities and investing in child care.
And Paul Martin is standing up to the Americans to get the right deal for BC on softwood lumber.
The fact is British Columbia's interests count in Ottawa like they never have before.
There's much more to do with your support we'll get the job done.
Well there you go, British Columbia -- looks like you're in."The fact is British Columbia's interests count in Ottawa like they never have before."
How can they do this with a straight face? I know different ads play to different provinces because of their diverse needs -- but this comes out and says -- 'hey, you haven't been strategically significant until now -- but suddenly it seems we need you and guess what, we're really going to listen to you this time.'
Of course that's if the Tories' Quebec numbers keep moving up and the Libs keep dropping like a stone. Strike another one for the party of national unity.
Maybe I'm just being picky.
canadianna
Thursday, January 05, 2006
I've caught the meme
Thanks to Angry for getting me with the latest "tag" meme: list five weird things about yourself, then tag five others to do the same.
1 My children always say I don't open my mouth when I speak. It's like words come out, but the lips don't move. I don't see it myself, but then, I'm not looking. My daughter thinks it's Freudian -- maybe I'm afraid of something I'll say.
2 I always buy ugly eyeglasses because they're cheap, and I figure that I'll never wear them anyway because I wear contacts. But then, invariably, I lose one of my contacts. And worse still, my glasses are held together with a twist tie ( you know where the little screw should go to hold on the arm). It used to be worse; it used to be with duct tape. No. I don't wear them in public.
3 I manage to burn myself every time I cook. I have a bunch of kids, therefore I cook every day and I have the scars to prove it.
4 There are four kids in our house -- and I went out and bought two puppies this summer. They are cute, but I'm almost convinced that I'm certifiable. When I want the kids to help out, I keep telling them that they wanted these dogs, but I think they know it was me all along.
5 I can't spell to save my life. All the while I'm posting, I'm turning to my oldest daughter (aka Human Dictionary) and saying "how do you spell . . ." If you see misspellings, it's because she wasn't around to ask.
Now I'd like to hear some weird things about:
Linda at The Great Pumpkin
Martin at The G-gnome Rides Out
Kateland at The Last Amazon
Jamie at Crittermusings
Bill at Strong World
canadianna
1 My children always say I don't open my mouth when I speak. It's like words come out, but the lips don't move. I don't see it myself, but then, I'm not looking. My daughter thinks it's Freudian -- maybe I'm afraid of something I'll say.
2 I always buy ugly eyeglasses because they're cheap, and I figure that I'll never wear them anyway because I wear contacts. But then, invariably, I lose one of my contacts. And worse still, my glasses are held together with a twist tie ( you know where the little screw should go to hold on the arm). It used to be worse; it used to be with duct tape. No. I don't wear them in public.
3 I manage to burn myself every time I cook. I have a bunch of kids, therefore I cook every day and I have the scars to prove it.
4 There are four kids in our house -- and I went out and bought two puppies this summer. They are cute, but I'm almost convinced that I'm certifiable. When I want the kids to help out, I keep telling them that they wanted these dogs, but I think they know it was me all along.
5 I can't spell to save my life. All the while I'm posting, I'm turning to my oldest daughter (aka Human Dictionary) and saying "how do you spell . . ." If you see misspellings, it's because she wasn't around to ask.
Now I'd like to hear some weird things about:
Linda at The Great Pumpkin
Martin at The G-gnome Rides Out
Kateland at The Last Amazon
Jamie at Crittermusings
Bill at Strong World
canadianna
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Having negative thoughts
I'm not sure how much effect election advertising has on voting intentions, but I believe it has had a serious affect the Liberals.
On December 30th, the Conservatives released their 'They'll Go Neg' ad.
On January 2nd, the Liberals released two new ads. Neither show much imagination or thought. Neither makes mention of any person or other party. One of them seems to be implying a negative (when it suggests that 'one leader -- will protect minority rights') but it's subtle enough.
The ad with Paul Martin dusting off his political record could have been pulled out of storage from the last campaign. He talks of the Liberal glory days of deficit slaying and debt reduction. If it isn't old, it had to have been cobbled together quickly because that record is simultaneous with the 'sponsorship years' and the 'transfer slashing years' which leaves him open to criticism for taking credit for the 'positive' things that happened on his watch, while seeing and hearing no evil at the same time. And of course, the 'positives' are all subject to interpretation. Many would say that the state of health care in this country is a direct result of Martin's transfer reductions to the provinces. Had he had time to think, Martin likely wouldn't have wanted to run on that record.
In the other ad they talk about Paul Martin as though he alone governed this country over the past twelve years:
'one leader' is responsible for the lowest unemployment in 30 years (because he changed the criteria for collecting EI and the method for calculating the unemployed skewing comparisons between pre-1995 and post-1995 numbers)
'one leader' reduced the deficit by $42 billion (by gutting tranfer payments to the provinces and creating a fiscal nightmare for all of them -- and all of us)
'one leader' had eight straight balanced budgets (I believe that's a lie. A balanced budget doesn't have a whopping surplus that can be used to line the party coffers or be given in perqs to Liberal friends. A surplus means over-taxation -- maybe that's why Mr. Martin isn't bragging -- because 'one leader' created many surpluses and put them in unauditable foundations -- so we'll never know how much or who's got it. Funny -- this party, which was in such debt last year, and which was forced to 'put aside' some money to pay back Canadians for their misdeeds, is now rolling in dough -- Steve MacKinnon, National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada . Coincidence?
'one leader' united the provinces to lower health care wait times.(after 12 years in office, they call this an accomplishment. Harper's answer to him said it all.)
'one leader' will protect minorities (except when it's politically incorrect)
'one leader' believes in a compassionate Canada (compassionate? He's still trying to impose himself and the rest of his myopic, pocket-picking miscreants on Canadians. That seems pretty harsh to me.)
The recent Conservative ads are being called negative by CTV (title link) but that's a matter of perspective. Besides, having made major policy announcements everyday, it isn't as though slamming the Liberals is all they have -- that's the gravy.
Martin is still trying to 'go neg' on the campaign trail, but I wonder how long the Liberals will restrain themselves on television and in print, just to try to prove the Conservatives' ad wrong.
I give them until the debates are over. Martin doesn't do well under pressure, and the pressure is buiding. I have a feeling he'll be trounced from all sides, and the Liberals will have no choice to drop the gloves.
canadianna
On December 30th, the Conservatives released their 'They'll Go Neg' ad.
On January 2nd, the Liberals released two new ads. Neither show much imagination or thought. Neither makes mention of any person or other party. One of them seems to be implying a negative (when it suggests that 'one leader -- will protect minority rights') but it's subtle enough.
The ad with Paul Martin dusting off his political record could have been pulled out of storage from the last campaign. He talks of the Liberal glory days of deficit slaying and debt reduction. If it isn't old, it had to have been cobbled together quickly because that record is simultaneous with the 'sponsorship years' and the 'transfer slashing years' which leaves him open to criticism for taking credit for the 'positive' things that happened on his watch, while seeing and hearing no evil at the same time. And of course, the 'positives' are all subject to interpretation. Many would say that the state of health care in this country is a direct result of Martin's transfer reductions to the provinces. Had he had time to think, Martin likely wouldn't have wanted to run on that record.
In the other ad they talk about Paul Martin as though he alone governed this country over the past twelve years:
'one leader' is responsible for the lowest unemployment in 30 years (because he changed the criteria for collecting EI and the method for calculating the unemployed skewing comparisons between pre-1995 and post-1995 numbers)
'one leader' reduced the deficit by $42 billion (by gutting tranfer payments to the provinces and creating a fiscal nightmare for all of them -- and all of us)
'one leader' had eight straight balanced budgets (I believe that's a lie. A balanced budget doesn't have a whopping surplus that can be used to line the party coffers or be given in perqs to Liberal friends. A surplus means over-taxation -- maybe that's why Mr. Martin isn't bragging -- because 'one leader' created many surpluses and put them in unauditable foundations -- so we'll never know how much or who's got it. Funny -- this party, which was in such debt last year, and which was forced to 'put aside' some money to pay back Canadians for their misdeeds, is now rolling in dough -- Steve MacKinnon, National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada . Coincidence?
'one leader' united the provinces to lower health care wait times.(after 12 years in office, they call this an accomplishment. Harper's answer to him said it all.)
'one leader' will protect minorities (except when it's politically incorrect)
'one leader' believes in a compassionate Canada (compassionate? He's still trying to impose himself and the rest of his myopic, pocket-picking miscreants on Canadians. That seems pretty harsh to me.)
The recent Conservative ads are being called negative by CTV (title link) but that's a matter of perspective. Besides, having made major policy announcements everyday, it isn't as though slamming the Liberals is all they have -- that's the gravy.
Martin is still trying to 'go neg' on the campaign trail, but I wonder how long the Liberals will restrain themselves on television and in print, just to try to prove the Conservatives' ad wrong.
I give them until the debates are over. Martin doesn't do well under pressure, and the pressure is buiding. I have a feeling he'll be trounced from all sides, and the Liberals will have no choice to drop the gloves.
canadianna
Monday, January 02, 2006
Gordon Stamp and the unity vigilante
Someone writes a letter to the editor, name withheld. The person is venting about his employer, his country, his wife . . . whatever. Another person with the means, or through duplicitous actions, uncovers who this person is and 'outs' them -- is that fair? Is it right? I don't know, I'm really just asking -- but I do think it's particularly odd when the outter is anonymous himself.
Personally, from all I've read, what Gord Stamp said was a fairly typical Albertan response to frustration with having no voice in confederation. Now, even the voice of frustration is being silenced. The guy was working for the Conservatives, so my guess is that he felt Canada was worth his spare time -- he was willing to take action to make it work because despite private reservations about the outcome of the upcoming election, he must believe in Canada. Feelings, reactions, thoughts, opinions and ideas are all still legal in Canada. Each of them is subject to change, to circumstances and, if they are subject to scrutiny, they shouldn't be treated as toxic unless they are advocating something illegal.
Was his talk treasonous? Was it illegal? or was it the bravado that comes from the relative anonymity of venting on a forum or a blog?
Personally, from all I've read, what Gord Stamp said was a fairly typical Albertan response to frustration with having no voice in confederation. Now, even the voice of frustration is being silenced. The guy was working for the Conservatives, so my guess is that he felt Canada was worth his spare time -- he was willing to take action to make it work because despite private reservations about the outcome of the upcoming election, he must believe in Canada. Feelings, reactions, thoughts, opinions and ideas are all still legal in Canada. Each of them is subject to change, to circumstances and, if they are subject to scrutiny, they shouldn't be treated as toxic unless they are advocating something illegal.
Was his talk treasonous? Was it illegal? or was it the bravado that comes from the relative anonymity of venting on a forum or a blog?
Is there nowhere that people can say what they think anymore without it becoming more than what it is?
I've read through much of what Stamp wrote and I have to say I believe the reaction is over-blown. There were no personal attacks. He called Ontarians 'stupid eastern voters'. He suggested that others in Alberta also feel ready to bolt when they contemplate the idea of five more years of Liberal hegemony -- and that some of those people have ties to the Conservative Party. Big whoop!
Has no one ever had a family fight, walked out, slammed the door, and shouted 'I'm outta here'. In a family, you try to understand what drives a person to speak like that -- you don't bolt the door behind them. In Canada, we seem to only have that kind of compassion for Quebeckers.
There are a good many Quebeckers working in government, taking a Canadian paycheque, who have now, or in their past, entertained the notion of an independent Quebec. Canada has survived. Paul Martin has embraced them -- one lives in the Governor General's mansion, another is his Quebec Lieutenant and a Cabinet Minister. But a volunteer in a party that hasn't even formed a government gets fired?
Yes, people have the right to react to Stamp's comments as they see fit -- and I suppose the Conservative Party wants to distance itself from people who use what is considered 'extreme' rhetoric -- but let's face it, Quebec has been separating since I was a little kid. Everyone listens. Everyone cares. We hold up banners that say 'my Canada includes Quebec'. An Albertan suggests that the Liberal status quo -- imposed on him and his province by Ontario -- would feed separatist forces in Alberta and he's treated like a traitor. We listen seriously to avowed separatist Gilles Duceppe -- allow him a voice in federal election debates -- but this volunteer -- who is working for a party that has no intention of splitting up the country -- he must be punished because he is the voice of extremism? Give me a break.
I've been thinking about Stamp a lot since yesterday when I went to visit Candace on Planet X. Through her post, I was led to LackofGreyMatter or BucketsofLostBrainCells or maybe it was Bouquets of Grey, the anonymous stalker blogger who seems take perverse joy in twisting daggers and dancing on graves as a public service. In the comment section, he tells Candace:
That was about 12 hours after having written a post entitled: More Stampy Goodness where he continues to do '(y)our party a service' and trying to flush out more operatives in the thriving and nefarious Alberta separatist movement.That this matter may have caused Mr. Stamp some personal pain is not anything that I take any pleasure in. I do believe, however, that I've done your party a service by exposing him and allowing you to do the right thing.
It continues today, the newest post slamming 'contingent Canadians' -- those who say there are limits to what they can put up with from government. Buckets goes into a 'my country, right or wrong' soliloquy that brought tears to my eyes. No, really. He speaks of his love of nation and says "I like who we are and what we're becoming" vowing only to vote for people who feel the same:
"no matter what mistakes its people or governments make."
It's unconscionable that in a free country anyone might feel differently from Mr. Bucket -- and then have the audacity to actually express that feeling. You'd think we were living in a bloody democracy or something. Mr. Stamp and his separatist ilk don't love the fact that waste, sleaze, corruption, lies, and arrogance are being normalized by an autocratic regime, which through a decade or more of manipulation have managed to vilify any religion, philosophy or political thought-process that doesn't fall into line with their own? For shame, Mr. Stamp. For shame!
It isn't only that I don't find Mr. Stamp's opinions offensive, or even very shocking (which I don't) given the political climate in this country. Heck, if the Liberals get in again, I want to separate -- It's that -- rather than listening to what Stamp was saying, the Conservative Party and or/ Peter Goldring, his MP, allowed his fear of public sentiment to drop the axe without even giving a nod to the fact that what Stamp said resonates with a lot of people -- not all of them Albertans but all of them Canadians.
Buckets admits that the sum of Gord Stamp's work in the Alberta separation movement has been talking separation ‘after the next election’ since the early Chretien days. And while Stamp loses his position, the phantom Bucket slithers and trolls and gossips, looking for fresh meat to skewer in his smug, creepy way.
We woo Quebeckers who threaten separation and shun Albertans who even think of it.
Liberal Canada. Like it or shut up.
canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)