It is a great day for Canada. The Supreme Court ruling striking down security certificates is huge. Bigger still is the declaration that our Charter of Rights applies not just to Canadians, but to foreign nationals as well. In essence it protects humans - which is really what human rights are all about. The Court, and the Coalition for Justice are to be lauded for the actions they took to instigate this 9-0 unanimous decision.
We hear some neoCons harping about the fact that these laws were passed by a Liberal gov't. Sure they were - in the light of the most brazen attacks ever seen on North American soil (in this century at least). Canadians were almost feeling as paranoid as their American neighbors. The Reform/Alliance unanimously supported the laws. But beyond supporting them, the Reformers are on the record as being their shrieking, angry selves and attacking the government for not going far enough. It was a Reform/Alliance opposition backed by one giant conservative media conglomerate (all the CanWest/Global group) who consistently bashed the Liberal gov't on being "soft on terrorism". They came up with fantastic stories (based on these very cases in the Supreme Court) about "Canada's weak borders and lax immigration laws", and basically accused Canada of allowing, first, terrorists to enter the country and plot attacks, then somehow being responsible for them entering the US. If a Liberal gov't passed the laws, it was certainly due to overwhelming demand - and a loud pro-US lobby - at that time ("at that particular time" is a very key point here).
Jump to 2007, where police have successfully investigated alleged terrorist groups WITHOUT the help of the Anti-Terrorism laws. Most lawmakers feel that the laws have passed their necessary life-span. This is the very reason the Liberal gov't instituted a "sunset clause". Liberals were aware of how draconian such laws can be if left unfettered. The "sunset clause" for the anti-terror laws is a critical component which ensured that citizens could have a reprieve from said laws IF it was deemed that there was less of a threat - or no real threat.
The security certificate decision will impact the greater argument concerning the anti-terrorism laws. Canada is a "safe" country. We need to continue our tradition of being globally neutral. When we ally ourselves with a particular side, it should be through the auspices of our Parliament and the United Nations (security resolutions, and mandates, etc.). Maintaining our neutrality and even-handed fairness will help us continue to grow as the greatest nation on earth.
As a party, we Liberals need to ensure the public is aware of the ongoing battle with neo-Con extremism, so we can protect Canadian democracy. It is our duty to educate the electorate on ideology, rather than strictly focus on platform (which can too easily be mimicked by other parties). It is critical that citizens know about the underlying ideologies which feed the various party apparatus. What do the membership of a party think? A party machine will often say or do things based on public opinion, however laws made by that party when in power are very often dictated by the party membership, and their ideological bent.
Today the Supreme Court helped fire a strong salvo in the coming ideological battle. We Liberals need to ensure we are prepared to carry the standard of human rights into the fray.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Somewhere In Heaven Rt. Hon. Pierre Trudeau Smiles
It is a great day for Canada. The Supreme Court ruling striking down security certificates is huge. Bigger still is the declaration that our Charter of Rights applies not just to Canadians, but to foreign nationals as well. In essence it protects humans - which is really what human rights are all about. The Court, and the Coalition for Justice are to be lauded for the actions they took to instigate this 9-0 unanimous decision.
We hear some neoCons harping about the fact that these laws were passed by a Liberal gov't. Sure they were - in the light of the most brazen attacks ever seen on North American soil (in this century at least). Canadians were almost feeling as paranoid as their American neighbors. The Reform/Alliance unanimously supported the laws. But beyond supporting them, the Reformers are on the record as being their shrieking, angry selves and attacking the government for not going far enough. It was a Reform/Alliance opposition backed by one giant conservative media conglomerate (all the CanWest/Global group) who consistently bashed the Liberal gov't on being "soft on terrorism". They came up with fantastic stories (based on these very cases in the Supreme Court) about "Canada's weak borders and lax immigration laws", and basically accused Canada of allowing, first, terrorists to enter the country and plot attacks, then somehow being responsible for them entering the US. If a Liberal gov't passed the laws, it was certainly due to overwhelming demand - and a loud pro-US lobby - at that time ("at that particular time" is a very key point here).
Jump to 2007, where police have successfully investigated alleged terrorist groups WITHOUT the help of the Anti-Terrorism laws. Most lawmakers feel that the laws have passed their necessary life-span. This is the very reason the Liberal gov't instituted a "sunset clause". Liberals were aware of how draconian such laws can be if left unfettered. The "sunset clause" for the anti-terror laws is a critical component which ensured that citizens could have a reprieve from said laws IF it was deemed that there was less of a threat - or no real threat.
The security certificate decision will impact the greater argument concerning the anti-terrorism laws. Canada is a "safe" country. We need to continue our tradition of being globally neutral. When we ally ourselves with a particular side, it should be through the auspices of our Parliament and the United Nations (security resolutions, and mandates, etc.). Maintaining our neutrality and even-handed fairness will help us continue to grow as the greatest nation on earth.
As a party, we Liberals need to ensure the public is aware of the ongoing battle with neo-Con extremism, so we can protect Canadian democracy. It is our duty to educate the electorate on ideology, rather than strictly focus on platform (which can too easily be mimicked by other parties). It is critical that citizens know about the underlying ideologies which feed the various party apparatus. What do the party members of a party think? A party machine will often say or do things based on public opinion, however laws made by that party when in power are very often dictated by the party membership, and their ideological bent.
Today the Supreme Court helped fire a strong salvo in the coming ideological battle. We Liberals need to ensure we are prepared to carry the standard of human rights into the fray.
We hear some neoCons harping about the fact that these laws were passed by a Liberal gov't. Sure they were - in the light of the most brazen attacks ever seen on North American soil (in this century at least). Canadians were almost feeling as paranoid as their American neighbors. The Reform/Alliance unanimously supported the laws. But beyond supporting them, the Reformers are on the record as being their shrieking, angry selves and attacking the government for not going far enough. It was a Reform/Alliance opposition backed by one giant conservative media conglomerate (all the CanWest/Global group) who consistently bashed the Liberal gov't on being "soft on terrorism". They came up with fantastic stories (based on these very cases in the Supreme Court) about "Canada's weak borders and lax immigration laws", and basically accused Canada of allowing, first, terrorists to enter the country and plot attacks, then somehow being responsible for them entering the US. If a Liberal gov't passed the laws, it was certainly due to overwhelming demand - and a loud pro-US lobby - at that time ("at that particular time" is a very key point here).
Jump to 2007, where police have successfully investigated alleged terrorist groups WITHOUT the help of the Anti-Terrorism laws. Most lawmakers feel that the laws have passed their necessary life-span. This is the very reason the Liberal gov't instituted a "sunset clause". Liberals were aware of how draconian such laws can be if left unfettered. The "sunset clause" for the anti-terror laws is a critical component which ensured that citizens could have a reprieve from said laws IF it was deemed that there was less of a threat - or no real threat.
The security certificate decision will impact the greater argument concerning the anti-terrorism laws. Canada is a "safe" country. We need to continue our tradition of being globally neutral. When we ally ourselves with a particular side, it should be through the auspices of our Parliament and the United Nations (security resolutions, and mandates, etc.). Maintaining our neutrality and even-handed fairness will help us continue to grow as the greatest nation on earth.
As a party, we Liberals need to ensure the public is aware of the ongoing battle with neo-Con extremism, so we can protect Canadian democracy. It is our duty to educate the electorate on ideology, rather than strictly focus on platform (which can too easily be mimicked by other parties). It is critical that citizens know about the underlying ideologies which feed the various party apparatus. What do the party members of a party think? A party machine will often say or do things based on public opinion, however laws made by that party when in power are very often dictated by the party membership, and their ideological bent.
Today the Supreme Court helped fire a strong salvo in the coming ideological battle. We Liberals need to ensure we are prepared to carry the standard of human rights into the fray.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Conservative Xenophobia Raises Its Ugly Head - Yet Again
As a proud South Asian Canadian I am shocked by Stephen Harper's attack on Sikh Canadians today. Now Canadians are well aware of racist statements made by conservatives Reformers, and Alliance MPs and candidates in the past. We are also pretty aware of Harper's now classic:
“You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society.”- Rt.Hon. Stephen Harper, PM of Canada”.
The very definition of Conservative is "resistant to change" - like the change new immigrants and cultural change bring to a country. Harper's neo-Cons have repeatedly shown their anti-immigrant bias - whether in policy constructed to leave out the disadvantaged in society, or in glad-handing immigration policy which really amounts to a hill of beans in the real world.
Harper's comments today are all the more shocking (for average Canadians - not for those of us who lived in his riding and know this man) when you consider this is what he says in public - just imagine what Stephen Harper thinks of certain minorities in his private life. Just imagine what he thinks behind closed doors in his (very non-multi-cultural) cabinet meetings when he formulates policy.
Harpo's attack today was an attempt to (very inappropriately) attack an MP of resounding integrity based on the mere questioning of a (non-blood) relative in a terrorism case. Forget the fact that this man may have been nothing more than a mere witness, or a community leader in the know, and had no link in any way to the events. Forget that we have a justice system in this country (we all know what the Conservatives think of the Canadian Justice System).
Harper did a very ugly thing today: the deliberate and blatantly racist attack on an entire minority group based on a racist stereotype. This is not new for Reformers. Remember when a turbaned Sikh wished to join the RCMP, and Harper's (then Reform) now Western Conservative compatriots helped attack the Sikh community by opposing Sikhs in the RCMP, and lauding the creators of a very racist button being distributed at rallies in Western Canada?
Stephen Harper singled out a turban-wearing Sikh MP, and the entire Sikh community today. In speaking to many Sikhs in Surrey today we can confidently say that he has also angered this community. More importantly he has shown his true colors today (and those of his right-wing party), and any feeble attempt by him to curry favor in this community (as we know are bound to happen come election time) will fall on very aware ears. I urge all Liberals to carry this message forward when speaking with people from my community. I know this will be my main focus during the next few months. We have to ensure the large Sikh communities in Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, and Montreal are aware of Harper's public feelings towards us, and the callous way in which he will try anything to paint us all with the same brush.
“You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society.”- Rt.Hon. Stephen Harper, PM of Canada”.
The very definition of Conservative is "resistant to change" - like the change new immigrants and cultural change bring to a country. Harper's neo-Cons have repeatedly shown their anti-immigrant bias - whether in policy constructed to leave out the disadvantaged in society, or in glad-handing immigration policy which really amounts to a hill of beans in the real world.
Harper's comments today are all the more shocking (for average Canadians - not for those of us who lived in his riding and know this man) when you consider this is what he says in public - just imagine what Stephen Harper thinks of certain minorities in his private life. Just imagine what he thinks behind closed doors in his (very non-multi-cultural) cabinet meetings when he formulates policy.
Harpo's attack today was an attempt to (very inappropriately) attack an MP of resounding integrity based on the mere questioning of a (non-blood) relative in a terrorism case. Forget the fact that this man may have been nothing more than a mere witness, or a community leader in the know, and had no link in any way to the events. Forget that we have a justice system in this country (we all know what the Conservatives think of the Canadian Justice System).
Harper did a very ugly thing today: the deliberate and blatantly racist attack on an entire minority group based on a racist stereotype. This is not new for Reformers. Remember when a turbaned Sikh wished to join the RCMP, and Harper's (then Reform) now Western Conservative compatriots helped attack the Sikh community by opposing Sikhs in the RCMP, and lauding the creators of a very racist button being distributed at rallies in Western Canada?
Stephen Harper singled out a turban-wearing Sikh MP, and the entire Sikh community today. In speaking to many Sikhs in Surrey today we can confidently say that he has also angered this community. More importantly he has shown his true colors today (and those of his right-wing party), and any feeble attempt by him to curry favor in this community (as we know are bound to happen come election time) will fall on very aware ears. I urge all Liberals to carry this message forward when speaking with people from my community. I know this will be my main focus during the next few months. We have to ensure the large Sikh communities in Vancouver, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, and Montreal are aware of Harper's public feelings towards us, and the callous way in which he will try anything to paint us all with the same brush.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Bravo Ralph!
It is great to see a man with impeccable integrity exonerated like we knew he would be. Ralph is a good friend, and really a great human being - besides being an incredibly honest and successful politician.
The Conservative SMEAR tactics were hurtful during the election. We all know the so-called sponsorship scandal was nothing more than a couple of low-end nobodies who just happened to hold a party membership (some even worked for the Cons previously). We now also have PROOF that the Cons relied on vicious drive-by smears to eke out a tiny minority. We need to turn the tables this Spring. Our MPs and candidates need to be witty and quick on their feet to succeed, and help us get the soundbites we'll need this election.
Time to get to work folks!
The Conservative SMEAR tactics were hurtful during the election. We all know the so-called sponsorship scandal was nothing more than a couple of low-end nobodies who just happened to hold a party membership (some even worked for the Cons previously). We now also have PROOF that the Cons relied on vicious drive-by smears to eke out a tiny minority. We need to turn the tables this Spring. Our MPs and candidates need to be witty and quick on their feet to succeed, and help us get the soundbites we'll need this election.
Time to get to work folks!
Happy Flag Day Canada!
Happy Flag Day! It is truly too bad that Canadian politics this past year or so do not reflect the values and spirit of Parliament in the days when our new flag was born.
Bear down team. We need to do everything we can to remove the neoCon scourge from the halls of Parliament. Talk to friends, neighbors, and co-workers to ensure they are well-educated on the policies of this government, as well as what Liberal ideology is all about.
Remember the flag. Peace.
Bear down team. We need to do everything we can to remove the neoCon scourge from the halls of Parliament. Talk to friends, neighbors, and co-workers to ensure they are well-educated on the policies of this government, as well as what Liberal ideology is all about.
Remember the flag. Peace.
Bravo Liberals! Our Strongest Opposition Moment Since The Election!
Well, it's about time. We finally have mounted a successful gambit in the Opposition Benches. Nice to see our experience and intelligence taking a front seat to our lost stumblings of the past several months.
On a lot of blogs on Liblogs I see bloggers talking about how Stephen Harper is governing like a dictator, and not someone with a slim minority government. The thing that many of us forget (hopefully not most of us) is that Harp is fully aware of the fact that we can't have an election right now... that most of the opposition is not ready (whether with policy, fiscally, or just plain mentally).
The puppetmaster team (Harp's US electioneering advisors) are fully aware of current Canadian political reality. He can be aggressive in his policy because he doesn't know anyone who will oppose him. His handlers can position him as the "tough, go-getter, driven" leader who is standing alone against the opposition. Harper is very good in this "lone gun" role. For neoCons, machismo and bravado are keys to turning public opinion into the flag-waving, beer-swilling, iconographic egoism we see represented by extreme conservatism in the United States. We're talking about a brand of machismo and extremism - punctuated by anger, fear, and hatred - that we haven't seen since Europe circa 1930s. What I fear most is that some of the public may look past his extreme policy just because they feel bad for him.
On a lot of blogs on Liblogs I see bloggers talking about how Stephen Harper is governing like a dictator, and not someone with a slim minority government. The thing that many of us forget (hopefully not most of us) is that Harp is fully aware of the fact that we can't have an election right now... that most of the opposition is not ready (whether with policy, fiscally, or just plain mentally).
The puppetmaster team (Harp's US electioneering advisors) are fully aware of current Canadian political reality. He can be aggressive in his policy because he doesn't know anyone who will oppose him. His handlers can position him as the "tough, go-getter, driven" leader who is standing alone against the opposition. Harper is very good in this "lone gun" role. For neoCons, machismo and bravado are keys to turning public opinion into the flag-waving, beer-swilling, iconographic egoism we see represented by extreme conservatism in the United States. We're talking about a brand of machismo and extremism - punctuated by anger, fear, and hatred - that we haven't seen since Europe circa 1930s. What I fear most is that some of the public may look past his extreme policy just because they feel bad for him.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Sure... They Can Organize Now...
I'm a huge fan of education. My years in University were enjoyable and rewarding. I am, and will continue to be a HUGE supporter of the Canadian student, and this nation's education system.
Yesterday we all got to view some of the best, most encouraging, and well-planned student protests I've seen in years (and I've had the chance to set up a few myself...). Understanding that the student's main lament is extremely high (albeit not at US levels yet) tuition, I have one question:
When PM Martin was promising a program that would cover the 1st and final years of Canadian University students' tuition, where the @%T^#Q! were all the students? Why could we not get them out to vote the same way they came out for these protests??? This is just as much an open-ended question for our own party, as it is for Canada's students.
There are only a couple of parties which would really try to do something for education funding, and research funding. Harper's Cons are not one of them.
Yesterday we all got to view some of the best, most encouraging, and well-planned student protests I've seen in years (and I've had the chance to set up a few myself...). Understanding that the student's main lament is extremely high (albeit not at US levels yet) tuition, I have one question:
When PM Martin was promising a program that would cover the 1st and final years of Canadian University students' tuition, where the @%T^#Q! were all the students? Why could we not get them out to vote the same way they came out for these protests??? This is just as much an open-ended question for our own party, as it is for Canada's students.
There are only a couple of parties which would really try to do something for education funding, and research funding. Harper's Cons are not one of them.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Pathetic Harper
Stephen Harper looked pathetic this week when arguing that Stephane was "denying" the science of clean air. It would take much more than Harper's stumping to change the truth on this one. Harper has been caught in an "inconvenient truth" situation... He was part of the "Alberta Oil Cartel" (so to speak) which got the neo-Cons elected - through all sorts of 3rd party manipulation (see National Citizen's Coalition, certain church groups, the Big Oil lobby, NRA, Farmers For Justice, etc., etc.).
Up to this year key Cons have been denying global warming. Now that polls are showing this to be a possible election issue, Harpo decides he needs to destroy the issue - rather than do anything about the actual problem. Harper looked like a clown when questioning Dion's commitment to the issue. He continues to gripe about Dion not doing anything... then goes on to cancel programs we Liberals did put into place (ex: Energuide). He fails to consider that Mr. Dion was part of a cabinet - not the PM - and may have had a lot less say than Ministers of other portfolios (ex: Finance, Public Works, etc.). There were many other priorities in the post-911 era.
Whatever the reason (and we don't need to make excuses), it is just a joke for the Cons to be questioning a dedicated intellectual's commitment to this matter. I had a few opportunities to meet with Mr. Dion over the years. I clearly recall the environment being the framework of a discussion he had with Young Liberals in the Westin Hotel in Calgary way back in 2004. He talked about how important the issue is, and how important Kyoto is. This was back when Mr. Dion was engaged in Mr. Harper's "war against Kyoto". Mr. Dion was a champion for Kyoto. If there was any reason why we Liberals couldn't do more than we did, it was due to the very LOUD NOISE coming out of Alberta - led by Mr. Harper, and Ralph Klein - both rabidly opposed to any measures that would impact Alberta's oil industry.
Mr. Harper is now in a bit of a conundrum. Unfortunately his lies about "a greener Canada" wouldn't cause him to lose votes in Alberta - no matter how angry people there get. Alberta is a very safe province for Harp. This makes it very easy for him to lie to the rest of Canada. All I gotta say is: If you think things are a little scary now, just see what happens if these clowns are given an accidental majority by the Canadian people.
Up to this year key Cons have been denying global warming. Now that polls are showing this to be a possible election issue, Harpo decides he needs to destroy the issue - rather than do anything about the actual problem. Harper looked like a clown when questioning Dion's commitment to the issue. He continues to gripe about Dion not doing anything... then goes on to cancel programs we Liberals did put into place (ex: Energuide). He fails to consider that Mr. Dion was part of a cabinet - not the PM - and may have had a lot less say than Ministers of other portfolios (ex: Finance, Public Works, etc.). There were many other priorities in the post-911 era.
Whatever the reason (and we don't need to make excuses), it is just a joke for the Cons to be questioning a dedicated intellectual's commitment to this matter. I had a few opportunities to meet with Mr. Dion over the years. I clearly recall the environment being the framework of a discussion he had with Young Liberals in the Westin Hotel in Calgary way back in 2004. He talked about how important the issue is, and how important Kyoto is. This was back when Mr. Dion was engaged in Mr. Harper's "war against Kyoto". Mr. Dion was a champion for Kyoto. If there was any reason why we Liberals couldn't do more than we did, it was due to the very LOUD NOISE coming out of Alberta - led by Mr. Harper, and Ralph Klein - both rabidly opposed to any measures that would impact Alberta's oil industry.
Mr. Harper is now in a bit of a conundrum. Unfortunately his lies about "a greener Canada" wouldn't cause him to lose votes in Alberta - no matter how angry people there get. Alberta is a very safe province for Harp. This makes it very easy for him to lie to the rest of Canada. All I gotta say is: If you think things are a little scary now, just see what happens if these clowns are given an accidental majority by the Canadian people.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Raminder Gill Patronage Appointment Used To Clear Way For Wajid Khan Defection? How Long Was This Planned?
This certainly is nothing abnormal - considering the Cons' complete lack of credibility on the principles of "accountability"...
With the appointment the Cons hoped to have 2 influential (in their own minds) South Asians able to press the flesh in the riding during an election. In a desperate ploy to obtain real MPs in Canada's largest urban centers they are finding the only way they can even appear to be trying to do this is via appointments.
The Gill appointment was wrong - according to Con "principles" in many ways: they say they don't believe in patronage... hahahahaha... lol, lol... They claim they are "attempting" to build bridges to the South Asian community. Hahahahaha... that's like saying "I'm not racist, I have (insert appropriate minority here) people as friends..."
The bottom line has always been: The definition of Conservative is "protecting/preserving the ways of the past". Any conservative movement - anywhere in the world - has typically always created policy aimed at preserving the mono-cultural identity of the majority population, while at the same time limiting the chances of success of any minority group. Canada's conservatives are no different. Growing up in "the West" (prairies, actually) allowed me to encounter many of those conservative ideas while knocking doors. The prairie heartland is where the roots of this new type of Conservative Party exist. Does anyone of any minority group actually think they (Cons) will be disloyal to their angry, mostly-immigrant-fearing SoCon base? C'mon!
With the appointment the Cons hoped to have 2 influential (in their own minds) South Asians able to press the flesh in the riding during an election. In a desperate ploy to obtain real MPs in Canada's largest urban centers they are finding the only way they can even appear to be trying to do this is via appointments.
The Gill appointment was wrong - according to Con "principles" in many ways: they say they don't believe in patronage... hahahahaha... lol, lol... They claim they are "attempting" to build bridges to the South Asian community. Hahahahaha... that's like saying "I'm not racist, I have (insert appropriate minority here) people as friends..."
The bottom line has always been: The definition of Conservative is "protecting/preserving the ways of the past". Any conservative movement - anywhere in the world - has typically always created policy aimed at preserving the mono-cultural identity of the majority population, while at the same time limiting the chances of success of any minority group. Canada's conservatives are no different. Growing up in "the West" (prairies, actually) allowed me to encounter many of those conservative ideas while knocking doors. The prairie heartland is where the roots of this new type of Conservative Party exist. Does anyone of any minority group actually think they (Cons) will be disloyal to their angry, mostly-immigrant-fearing SoCon base? C'mon!
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Mainstream Media Sits On Collective Butts While Harper Twists Truth Without Consequence
Well, the headline basically explains it all. How can Canada's mainstream media be so willfully blind, that they can fail to take Harper to task on his stance on the whole Arar situation? I mean c'mon, the Conservative/Alliancers were a certifiable lynch mob when debating Maher Arar's release in Parliament. They were attacking our Liberal government on not arresting Arar ourselves. They were screaming about Arar being another example of poor Canadian immigration and border control, and how their American allies were being impacted by it.
I guess we can suppose that the nature of the conservative ownership of much of Canada's "new" tabloidish media explains why the BBC and sometimes CBC are among the last honest, non-sensationalizing true news agencies left in this world... This is the very reason why we cannot allow groups like BBC, CBC, and PBS die. The right will continue to try to paint these agencies as "left-wing", but these networks are really the only hope of any real neutrality in reporting in most of the world.
Shame.
I guess we can suppose that the nature of the conservative ownership of much of Canada's "new" tabloidish media explains why the BBC and sometimes CBC are among the last honest, non-sensationalizing true news agencies left in this world... This is the very reason why we cannot allow groups like BBC, CBC, and PBS die. The right will continue to try to paint these agencies as "left-wing", but these networks are really the only hope of any real neutrality in reporting in most of the world.
Shame.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
So Why Aren't We Hammering Home The Fact That Harper Is A Kyoto/Global Warming-Denier???
Stephen Harper (aka "Shrub") is a global warming denier. Pure and simple. He has railed for years that the Cons don't agree with "the science of" global warming. He has railed against the Kyoto Accord. We should be standing at every street corner in Canada (during Vancouver blizzards, minus 55C weather in Regina, or in a boat in the formerly frozen over Arctic Ocean) yelling at the top of our lungs about Harper's open opposition to the global scientific evidence of severe climate change. You would think we would have plenty of ammunition... Here are a few examples, in case our 100-some odd MPs draw a blank in question period (really, I think we're all clamoring for our star MPs to stand up and start firing some zingers at this pathetic wanna-be government):
A Conservative government would abandon the Kyoto accord and set new Canadian-made targets that are easier to meet, leader Stephen Harper said Thursday in Halifax.
Harper said Kyoto's emission targets couldn't be met within Canada or even internationally. He pointed to the country's woeful record on climate change since the agreement was signed in 1997.
"The Kyoto accord will not succeed at achieving its objectives..."
(WesternGrit: When I set a goal/target for, let's say weight loss, I don't say I'm not going to set a target because I can't achieve it - that's against the very nature of goal-setting itself. If we never set targets we wouldn't have this great society we live in today. For Harper to argue that we won't even TRY to reach a target because it is [in his narrow opinion] unachievable is something he needs to be taken to task on. It is a pathetic cop-out to the oil industry. A pullout from Kyoto at this point would hurt the agreement and environments worldwide. Most of the World is currently a signatory. Very few nations are not. In order to get the remaining few dregs on-side we need to set a good example, and we need to push the biggest polluters - our "best friends" to the South).
Harper always spouted about Kyoto being unrealistic. All we ever heard during the election and the past few months especially (ever since the Environment got on the map as a vote-losing issue for the Harpies) was about how the Liberals were surpassed by Bush in greenhouse gas reduction (oh, he was very careful not to criticize Kyoto). Hmmm... wonder if the Americans beating us in some areas has anything to do with this: The US is by far the worst polluter in the world, many times worse than Canada. Couple that with the fact that a LOT of America's most polluting industries have jumped to countries like Mexico and China, while Canada's resource-based industry remains here - often exploited by American companies (like Big Oil). Our oil industry wouldn't just pack up and leave - while a lot of factories and manufacturing plants have vacated the US in the past decade. Any laws passed by a government to battle consumer/institutional pollution would scarcely make a dent in Canada - while in the US the exact same - or even lesser legislation would have a much bigger impact. This is due to the nature of the main polluters in each country. Here in Canada it is Big Oil and some other resource industries, while in the US individual consumers are a huge part of the equation. What Harper effectively has been doing is helping Alberta build a firewall around the oil industry, using any breath he had to protect big oil (along with a lot of help from oil lobbyists), while criticizing any efforts made by former Liberal governments - knowing full well that he and his oil-lobbyist friends, and Ralph Klein, and Danny Williams (both loyal conservatives) would have all conspired to create a national crisis had the Liberal governments done ANYTHING that even suggested some regulation in the pollution-rich oil sector. As a campaigner in Alberta, all one ever hears is hateful, vindictive statements about the Liberals and the NEP - as if it is some sort of "pre-emptive strike" in case voters even think of voting Liberal.)
Remember what a great statesman (Albert Gore) said about the Harper Government's motivation:
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.
Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.
"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."
(WesternGrit: To successfully do our part in stopping global warming and climate change we will need to face challenges in our oil/resource sectors. We Canadians need to have the cajones to take the leap and decide to impose earth-saving regulations on these sectors, as well as continue with efforts our past Liberal governments made in the environment. The choice is ours to make)
A Conservative government would abandon the Kyoto accord and set new Canadian-made targets that are easier to meet, leader Stephen Harper said Thursday in Halifax.
Harper said Kyoto's emission targets couldn't be met within Canada or even internationally. He pointed to the country's woeful record on climate change since the agreement was signed in 1997.
"The Kyoto accord will not succeed at achieving its objectives..."
(WesternGrit: When I set a goal/target for, let's say weight loss, I don't say I'm not going to set a target because I can't achieve it - that's against the very nature of goal-setting itself. If we never set targets we wouldn't have this great society we live in today. For Harper to argue that we won't even TRY to reach a target because it is [in his narrow opinion] unachievable is something he needs to be taken to task on. It is a pathetic cop-out to the oil industry. A pullout from Kyoto at this point would hurt the agreement and environments worldwide. Most of the World is currently a signatory. Very few nations are not. In order to get the remaining few dregs on-side we need to set a good example, and we need to push the biggest polluters - our "best friends" to the South).
Harper always spouted about Kyoto being unrealistic. All we ever heard during the election and the past few months especially (ever since the Environment got on the map as a vote-losing issue for the Harpies) was about how the Liberals were surpassed by Bush in greenhouse gas reduction (oh, he was very careful not to criticize Kyoto). Hmmm... wonder if the Americans beating us in some areas has anything to do with this: The US is by far the worst polluter in the world, many times worse than Canada. Couple that with the fact that a LOT of America's most polluting industries have jumped to countries like Mexico and China, while Canada's resource-based industry remains here - often exploited by American companies (like Big Oil). Our oil industry wouldn't just pack up and leave - while a lot of factories and manufacturing plants have vacated the US in the past decade. Any laws passed by a government to battle consumer/institutional pollution would scarcely make a dent in Canada - while in the US the exact same - or even lesser legislation would have a much bigger impact. This is due to the nature of the main polluters in each country. Here in Canada it is Big Oil and some other resource industries, while in the US individual consumers are a huge part of the equation. What Harper effectively has been doing is helping Alberta build a firewall around the oil industry, using any breath he had to protect big oil (along with a lot of help from oil lobbyists), while criticizing any efforts made by former Liberal governments - knowing full well that he and his oil-lobbyist friends, and Ralph Klein, and Danny Williams (both loyal conservatives) would have all conspired to create a national crisis had the Liberal governments done ANYTHING that even suggested some regulation in the pollution-rich oil sector. As a campaigner in Alberta, all one ever hears is hateful, vindictive statements about the Liberals and the NEP - as if it is some sort of "pre-emptive strike" in case voters even think of voting Liberal.)
Remember what a great statesman (Albert Gore) said about the Harper Government's motivation:
Renata D'Aliesio and Katherine Monk, Calgary Herald; CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, January 26, 2006Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.
"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.
"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."
(WesternGrit: To successfully do our part in stopping global warming and climate change we will need to face challenges in our oil/resource sectors. We Canadians need to have the cajones to take the leap and decide to impose earth-saving regulations on these sectors, as well as continue with efforts our past Liberal governments made in the environment. The choice is ours to make)
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Baird and Harper Hope to Sell Environmental Sham
So... a few million in funds (versus the billions the government will give to the oil industry). While that is quite a story, it's not the real story. The story here is that the menial funding is a total sham in itself. The paltry 58 million dollars will fund what basically amounts to "looking into the problem". Nothing in the way of real policy to (for example):
1) Regulate the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in Canada (the Alberta oil industry). The provincial government is partially responsible here - charging a pittance in royalties, clearly robbing the people of Alberta to help pad the pockets of their conservative oil company overlords. Even Peter Lougheed (former PC Premier of Alberta thinks the province is being fleeced by big oil). If the Yanks want to come up here for "safe oil" they're going to have to pay for it. Canada's sole purpose is NOT US "oil security". With the backbone of Stephen "Shrub" Harper's electoral strength being Alberta oil country it is highly unlikely anything will happen in this area, meaning Canada's rampant CO2 emissions will remain high.
2) Put strict fuel-efficiency standards on all automobiles - including SUVs
3) Tax SUVs at point of purchase - to convince consumers to choose more sensible vehicles (I drive a compact pickup for my business, instead of a monster SUV/wagon because it hauls everything I need and still manages 30mpg on the highway (not bad for a 5500lb 4x4)
4) Tax cuts for purchasers of hybrids (to help offset the price crunch when you purchase them
5) Tax rebates for home renovations geared to conserving energy (ex: geothermal/solar heating; insulating basements, attics, and garages)
6) STAND BEHIND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS = KYOTO!!!
As a party, we need to stand up and call to task the Harpies on their sham of an environmental "policy". We will need to be prepared for Canada's biggest gas-emitter - Minister Baird - to spout his usual sputum-laden diatribes concerning things "the last government" didn't accomplish. The nice thing is that Canadians are getting sick and tired of hearing the old schoolyard "he did it, not me" crap.
1) Regulate the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in Canada (the Alberta oil industry). The provincial government is partially responsible here - charging a pittance in royalties, clearly robbing the people of Alberta to help pad the pockets of their conservative oil company overlords. Even Peter Lougheed (former PC Premier of Alberta thinks the province is being fleeced by big oil). If the Yanks want to come up here for "safe oil" they're going to have to pay for it. Canada's sole purpose is NOT US "oil security". With the backbone of Stephen "Shrub" Harper's electoral strength being Alberta oil country it is highly unlikely anything will happen in this area, meaning Canada's rampant CO2 emissions will remain high.
2) Put strict fuel-efficiency standards on all automobiles - including SUVs
3) Tax SUVs at point of purchase - to convince consumers to choose more sensible vehicles (I drive a compact pickup for my business, instead of a monster SUV/wagon because it hauls everything I need and still manages 30mpg on the highway (not bad for a 5500lb 4x4)
4) Tax cuts for purchasers of hybrids (to help offset the price crunch when you purchase them
5) Tax rebates for home renovations geared to conserving energy (ex: geothermal/solar heating; insulating basements, attics, and garages)
6) STAND BEHIND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS = KYOTO!!!
As a party, we need to stand up and call to task the Harpies on their sham of an environmental "policy". We will need to be prepared for Canada's biggest gas-emitter - Minister Baird - to spout his usual sputum-laden diatribes concerning things "the last government" didn't accomplish. The nice thing is that Canadians are getting sick and tired of hearing the old schoolyard "he did it, not me" crap.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Khan & Harper Use Taxpayer's Money To Solicit South Asian Votes In Mississauga
Conservative "Accountability" In Action:
- Stephen "Shrub" Harper and Wajid Khan openly solicited South Asians to "join the Conservative Party".
- Khan had plans to cross the floor PRIOR to the cabinet shuffle (according to Stockwell Day's Riding newsletter) - showing he lied about Dion pushing him from the party. We all know that Khan was a Con fifth columnist all along. His numerous conservative friends were more than likely getting Liberal insider info for years. Anything for a buck eh Wajid?
- Conservatives lambasted Belinda for crossing the floor - going as far as uttering sexist slurs, and making very stinging public comments. Mr. Harper claimed the "ethics" of floor crossing was one of the big reasons he felt the government needs more accountability (prior to the 2006 election). How the tables turn when you run a minority government yourself.
- Khan promised a report would be made public when he returned from his Middle East and Asian vacation. We now know how much it cost, but Khan and Harper have indicated they will not release the report. Were they blatantly lying to taxpayers? Shrub? What happened to "ethics".
The popular rap group NWA once did a short rap titled "Here's what they think of you..." Here's what Harper thinks of "Asians": "You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in Report Newsmagazine, 2001. (Thanks to a fellow Blogger - Jeff Davidson - for posting this old Harper comment)
As one of the "WesternGrit" columnists, I'm a descendant of immigrants living in the West. I don't recall living in any ghettos when I grew up in the West. I actually most recently resided right in Calgary SW - Stephen Harper's own riding. I have personally experienced many a far right conservative in my life in the rural West, and believe me - while it might be different in urban metro Canada - much of the Conservative "base" is very strongly anti-immigrant.
Wajid Khan is joining the Cons simply as an opportunist. Like many collaborators in history he is perfectly willing to sell out his own interests - at the expense of ethics - simply to increase his own importance. Good riddance. As Liberals it is our duty to ensure these breaches of Harper's "accountability" principles are tossed right back in his face during the next election. Mr. Dion needs clear talking points outlining all of the Conservative's accountability lies. We should be publishing a list in national newspapers. We need to ensure he can't ever play "holier than thou".
Mr. Dion also needs to engage the immigrant community, but also all minorities in general. Some of the defectors to the Conservatives are saying we took minorities for-granted - that we thought we had their votes as a "given". While we may have banked on these votes, we need to begin a "Multiculturalism Engagement Campaign" to ensure we explain to minority groups across the country that our party ideals, policy, and ideology are the most supportive of minorities in this great land. I propose that the Liberal Party have a statement/booklet showing the views and activities of our Multiculturalism Committee available to cultural groups across the country. We HAVE a Multiculturalism Chair - the Conservatives don't and don't care to. We need to use this fact to help highlight how much we are in tune with cultural issues, and how the Conservatives could care less about multiculturalism. As a matter of fact it was Reform/Conservative policy to oppose Canada being a multicultural nation. They would rather we were a "melting pot" like the US.
The Conservatives will do anything to try to get minority votes - and trust me, the VOTES is all they're after. They could care less about creating any long-term policy changes to help minority groups, new immigrants, and the underpriveleged. Platitudes and tokens - that's all they'll put forward. Unfortunately this may be enough to win over some cultural minority votes. We need to remember that politics works differently in other lands - and typically the person is voted for, not one of the dozens of parties they stand for. Indian sub-continent politics is a good example of this. To maintain these votes we need to:
1) Continue to engage community leaders "on the ground"
2) Educate new Canadians and other minorities about what we have done and continue to do for them on a daily basis
- Stephen "Shrub" Harper and Wajid Khan openly solicited South Asians to "join the Conservative Party".
- Khan had plans to cross the floor PRIOR to the cabinet shuffle (according to Stockwell Day's Riding newsletter) - showing he lied about Dion pushing him from the party. We all know that Khan was a Con fifth columnist all along. His numerous conservative friends were more than likely getting Liberal insider info for years. Anything for a buck eh Wajid?
- Conservatives lambasted Belinda for crossing the floor - going as far as uttering sexist slurs, and making very stinging public comments. Mr. Harper claimed the "ethics" of floor crossing was one of the big reasons he felt the government needs more accountability (prior to the 2006 election). How the tables turn when you run a minority government yourself.
- Khan promised a report would be made public when he returned from his Middle East and Asian vacation. We now know how much it cost, but Khan and Harper have indicated they will not release the report. Were they blatantly lying to taxpayers? Shrub? What happened to "ethics".
The popular rap group NWA once did a short rap titled "Here's what they think of you..." Here's what Harper thinks of "Asians": "You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in Report Newsmagazine, 2001. (Thanks to a fellow Blogger - Jeff Davidson - for posting this old Harper comment)
As one of the "WesternGrit" columnists, I'm a descendant of immigrants living in the West. I don't recall living in any ghettos when I grew up in the West. I actually most recently resided right in Calgary SW - Stephen Harper's own riding. I have personally experienced many a far right conservative in my life in the rural West, and believe me - while it might be different in urban metro Canada - much of the Conservative "base" is very strongly anti-immigrant.
Wajid Khan is joining the Cons simply as an opportunist. Like many collaborators in history he is perfectly willing to sell out his own interests - at the expense of ethics - simply to increase his own importance. Good riddance. As Liberals it is our duty to ensure these breaches of Harper's "accountability" principles are tossed right back in his face during the next election. Mr. Dion needs clear talking points outlining all of the Conservative's accountability lies. We should be publishing a list in national newspapers. We need to ensure he can't ever play "holier than thou".
Mr. Dion also needs to engage the immigrant community, but also all minorities in general. Some of the defectors to the Conservatives are saying we took minorities for-granted - that we thought we had their votes as a "given". While we may have banked on these votes, we need to begin a "Multiculturalism Engagement Campaign" to ensure we explain to minority groups across the country that our party ideals, policy, and ideology are the most supportive of minorities in this great land. I propose that the Liberal Party have a statement/booklet showing the views and activities of our Multiculturalism Committee available to cultural groups across the country. We HAVE a Multiculturalism Chair - the Conservatives don't and don't care to. We need to use this fact to help highlight how much we are in tune with cultural issues, and how the Conservatives could care less about multiculturalism. As a matter of fact it was Reform/Conservative policy to oppose Canada being a multicultural nation. They would rather we were a "melting pot" like the US.
The Conservatives will do anything to try to get minority votes - and trust me, the VOTES is all they're after. They could care less about creating any long-term policy changes to help minority groups, new immigrants, and the underpriveleged. Platitudes and tokens - that's all they'll put forward. Unfortunately this may be enough to win over some cultural minority votes. We need to remember that politics works differently in other lands - and typically the person is voted for, not one of the dozens of parties they stand for. Indian sub-continent politics is a good example of this. To maintain these votes we need to:
1) Continue to engage community leaders "on the ground"
2) Educate new Canadians and other minorities about what we have done and continue to do for them on a daily basis
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
So Mr. Harper... Do You Still "Reject the science of Kyoto"? Do You Still Feel "There is no solid proof of Global Warming"???
A third snowstorm on the West Coast. Vicious blizzards on the Prairies. Record warm temperatures in the Maritimes (cripes, they're golfin' out dere!). No snow in Southern Ontario and Ottawa (no skating on the Rideau!). Giant Arctic ice shelves breaking off our northern islands... Record cold in Northern India. More devastating storms occurring around the world than at any other time in recorded (or scientifically determined) history.
What is going on? It seems the climate is doing something... Something different than it did over the past several thousand years... What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah... change. Looks like our climate is changing...
Stephen Harper (Shrub) spent the last 10+ years ranting about how "the 'science' behind Kyoto was flawed...", how there is no such thing as climate change. Remember where Harper comes from: Calgary AB - the heart of Canada's American-dominated and controlled oil industry. AB Conservatives/Reformers tend to be angry oil industry apologists. Guess who campaigned for Shrub (many AB Cons - assured of a sweep in the "home province" spent most of the last election sermonizing across the rest of Canada) and financed his run to Ottawa??? Thousands of neo-Con ideologues right out of Canada's neo-Con heartland. Guess who most of them work for (either directly or indirectly)? The Alberta oil patch. Whether they are investment bankers, geologists, self-proclaimed "rig-pigs", oil execs, or any of the myriad oil service and oil related businesses, they all serve the goddess "Petroleum".
Will Shrub ever change his opinion of Climate Change? No. Sure he'll talk about (and listen to his words closely) "doing more", and "doing more than the last government". All he's going to continue to do is try to make it look like he's outdone the Liberals. If he treats this like he treated National Child Care, we may have nothing to worry about (when the facts come out). Unfortunately what we have at stake is the future of our planet and most likely the human race. A party which still has members who believe dinosaurs roamed the earth with men, and the earth is only 6000 years old, and for years has insisted on being "Climate Change-Deniers" has no place at the helm of this land as we face the greatest challenge to human existence.
What is going on? It seems the climate is doing something... Something different than it did over the past several thousand years... What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah... change. Looks like our climate is changing...
Stephen Harper (Shrub) spent the last 10+ years ranting about how "the 'science' behind Kyoto was flawed...", how there is no such thing as climate change. Remember where Harper comes from: Calgary AB - the heart of Canada's American-dominated and controlled oil industry. AB Conservatives/Reformers tend to be angry oil industry apologists. Guess who campaigned for Shrub (many AB Cons - assured of a sweep in the "home province" spent most of the last election sermonizing across the rest of Canada) and financed his run to Ottawa??? Thousands of neo-Con ideologues right out of Canada's neo-Con heartland. Guess who most of them work for (either directly or indirectly)? The Alberta oil patch. Whether they are investment bankers, geologists, self-proclaimed "rig-pigs", oil execs, or any of the myriad oil service and oil related businesses, they all serve the goddess "Petroleum".
Will Shrub ever change his opinion of Climate Change? No. Sure he'll talk about (and listen to his words closely) "doing more", and "doing more than the last government". All he's going to continue to do is try to make it look like he's outdone the Liberals. If he treats this like he treated National Child Care, we may have nothing to worry about (when the facts come out). Unfortunately what we have at stake is the future of our planet and most likely the human race. A party which still has members who believe dinosaurs roamed the earth with men, and the earth is only 6000 years old, and for years has insisted on being "Climate Change-Deniers" has no place at the helm of this land as we face the greatest challenge to human existence.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Why Isn't Khan In Pakistan???
So former Pakistani Air Force Officer, self-proclaimed "knower of people", "expert" on Middle Eastern and South Asian affairs, and PM Shrub's latest blatant attempt to buy minority votes, didn't accompany External Affairs neophyte - Peter MacKay - to (of all places) South Asia. Mr. Khan indicated his "expertise" in the region would help the Shrub government deal with a situation involving the arrests of suspected terrorists in the GTA.
Why would Canada's "expert" on South Asian affairs - someone who claims to have "special" insight into the region's problems - not join a tour of Canadian officials to the region? Can anyone guess why this might be? Anyone? Bueller? Maybe - just maybe (and this is just a wild guess based on "wild speculation") - PM Shrub thought he would be able to "buy" South Asian votes in the GTA with this move. What easier way to do this than to pick someone who has some conservative leanings (re: Wajid's stand on same-sex marriage), conveniently located in a city where the Cons got shut out last election? Now PM Shrub and his neo-Con brethren can claim a couple of things: 1) they're "engaged" in the Middle East; and 2) they can't be a party harboring any "closet racists" when they have (insert appropriate race/ethnicity/demographic here) in their party. Does he really hope/think that modern urban Canadians will easily forget the hate-filled remarks made by former Reform/Alliance candidates - most of whom are still keenly active within the party?
Where's Khan's report? Last Spring he promised (according to CBC News): ..."Khan promised at the time that his report would be available to all political parties, promising it would be "unbiased and freestanding."" Khan lied to Canadians - with PM Shrub's help. Where's ANY accountability in that? What area of Middle East relations does Khan hold expertise in? Not sure how being a car dealer helped with that. The American-backed Pakistani Air Force did little if any work with any Middle Eastern nations - especially the one's he visited. Yet, Khan still claims: "some expertise, I have contacts and I have intel." Wouldn't Foreign Affairs benefit from his being along on the junket?
Here's reality:
1) Petey has no power to do anything in the region anyways, and his trip to South Asia is just another "Bush-esque" flag-waving, tax-payer-sponsored PR junket aimed at rallying Canadians to "support the troops" in the most politically partisan manner one can dream (I mean seriously, we all know that conservatives are the only ones anywhere who "love troops" - they're just usually too "chicken-hawk" to serve alongside them)
2) Newsflash - Khan isn't an expert on anything besides selling used cars and flying scrapped ex-American warbirds, and he landed himself a cushy position where he has to do basically nothing - just because of the riding he happened to cross the floor in.
Accountable government?
Why would Canada's "expert" on South Asian affairs - someone who claims to have "special" insight into the region's problems - not join a tour of Canadian officials to the region? Can anyone guess why this might be? Anyone? Bueller? Maybe - just maybe (and this is just a wild guess based on "wild speculation") - PM Shrub thought he would be able to "buy" South Asian votes in the GTA with this move. What easier way to do this than to pick someone who has some conservative leanings (re: Wajid's stand on same-sex marriage), conveniently located in a city where the Cons got shut out last election? Now PM Shrub and his neo-Con brethren can claim a couple of things: 1) they're "engaged" in the Middle East; and 2) they can't be a party harboring any "closet racists" when they have (insert appropriate race/ethnicity/demographic here) in their party. Does he really hope/think that modern urban Canadians will easily forget the hate-filled remarks made by former Reform/Alliance candidates - most of whom are still keenly active within the party?
Where's Khan's report? Last Spring he promised (according to CBC News): ..."Khan promised at the time that his report would be available to all political parties, promising it would be "unbiased and freestanding."" Khan lied to Canadians - with PM Shrub's help. Where's ANY accountability in that? What area of Middle East relations does Khan hold expertise in? Not sure how being a car dealer helped with that. The American-backed Pakistani Air Force did little if any work with any Middle Eastern nations - especially the one's he visited. Yet, Khan still claims: "some expertise, I have contacts and I have intel." Wouldn't Foreign Affairs benefit from his being along on the junket?
Here's reality:
1) Petey has no power to do anything in the region anyways, and his trip to South Asia is just another "Bush-esque" flag-waving, tax-payer-sponsored PR junket aimed at rallying Canadians to "support the troops" in the most politically partisan manner one can dream (I mean seriously, we all know that conservatives are the only ones anywhere who "love troops" - they're just usually too "chicken-hawk" to serve alongside them)
2) Newsflash - Khan isn't an expert on anything besides selling used cars and flying scrapped ex-American warbirds, and he landed himself a cushy position where he has to do basically nothing - just because of the riding he happened to cross the floor in.
Accountable government?
Friday, January 05, 2007
Wajid Khan - Turncoat Action May Help Us In The Long Run
So PM Shrub thought he'd have a 5th columnist not-so-hidden among Liberal ranks. Harper could not cajole, beg, or borrow an urban Canadian seat in any of the major metros, so he bought one (Emerson), and now by giving a glory-hungry South Asian (I'm South Asian, so I can say with confidence what I know precisely what a lot of South Asian 1st generation politicians and wannabes are like) an "important" role in caucus ("Official Currier - would that be vindaloo? hahaha - of Favor for South Asian Affairs"). 2nd generation politicians tend to be a lot less driven by these factors - people like Ruby Dhalla, Rahim Jaffer, or Navdeep Bains, all raised in Canada have a fresh new outlook on politics, much different than their 1st gen parents.
As a South Asian I'm appalled that any person of my cultural background would even consider running for the Cons. Sure, they may have some things in common (ex: liking "free enterprise"), but so do Liberals. These people seem not to consider that the full slate of Conservative views are detrimental to both immigrants and visible minorities (as well as women and minorities in general). As someone who grew up around a lot of first generation immigrant South Asian politicians, I can say that many of their "facilitators" were only concerned with "being the boss" or the "bigshot" in any community. They typically run no-holds-barred fights just to gain key roles in community religious or cultural organizations. After these (often dirty) fights, they divide communities and end up hurting the parties they work for (as the people who despise them will typically work for "anyone but" them - regardless of ideology, it becomes a popularity contest).
Politicians like Mr. Khan (good riddance) have no scruples. To sell out your principles (if indeed you had any) for a position, is really the wrong thing to do. I know what Mr. Khan was thinking... He must be basking in the glory of his position as THE link to the federal government for the several hundred thousand South Asians in Canada - as well as the millions of South Asians they relate to abroad. This type of position - while not seeming important to a lot of Canadians - can have a huge reward for the position-holder - both personal and often financial. Certainly being able to reinforce one's political power is one huge part of it.
Perhaps we Liberals need to be a little more careful in our selection of candidates, although I don't think this is really the key. What we Liberals need to do is to stop taking for granted that we "own" the minority vote. Sure, on the issues we are right there with minorities across Canada. Being moderates lends itself to that. The thing is, when the Cons run at us, they will usually hit us with some "quick-win" approach that costs them nothing (ex; apology to Chinese Canadians), or something equally visible - but for which they could care less. They typically will do this rather than have actual social policy which helps minorities and underprivileged Canadians move ahead. I strongly urge our newly elected Multicultural Chair - as well as our new leadership - to do something in the way of a concerted Multiculturalism Policy for the lead-up to the next election.
We saw a leadership campaign in which bus-loads of South Asian (in particular) delegates were aggressively courted by all camps. It is time for the favor to be returned - for the good of Canadian minorities AND for the good of our party. If we fail - as a party - to secure a mainstay of our urban vote, we will struggle to retain some urban seats in the next federal election. Knowing our "glorious successes" against Conservatives in rural ridings, we may well be in trouble if we don't shore up our "bread and butter" vote. The party needs to begin a concerted campaign outlining what great leaders like Laurier, Pearson, Trudeau, and Cretien did for minorities and immigrants. I hope Mr. Amarjit Grewal (our new Multiculturalism Chair) is up to the challenge. Hopefully he'll get some help in consulting our leadership on engaging the multiculturalism issue in a general election (and before it). MPs like Ujjal Dusanj, Sukh Dhaliwal, Ruby Dhalla, and Navdeep Bains will all have to play a key role in this "Multiculturalism Renewal Process".
As a South Asian I'm appalled that any person of my cultural background would even consider running for the Cons. Sure, they may have some things in common (ex: liking "free enterprise"), but so do Liberals. These people seem not to consider that the full slate of Conservative views are detrimental to both immigrants and visible minorities (as well as women and minorities in general). As someone who grew up around a lot of first generation immigrant South Asian politicians, I can say that many of their "facilitators" were only concerned with "being the boss" or the "bigshot" in any community. They typically run no-holds-barred fights just to gain key roles in community religious or cultural organizations. After these (often dirty) fights, they divide communities and end up hurting the parties they work for (as the people who despise them will typically work for "anyone but" them - regardless of ideology, it becomes a popularity contest).
Politicians like Mr. Khan (good riddance) have no scruples. To sell out your principles (if indeed you had any) for a position, is really the wrong thing to do. I know what Mr. Khan was thinking... He must be basking in the glory of his position as THE link to the federal government for the several hundred thousand South Asians in Canada - as well as the millions of South Asians they relate to abroad. This type of position - while not seeming important to a lot of Canadians - can have a huge reward for the position-holder - both personal and often financial. Certainly being able to reinforce one's political power is one huge part of it.
Perhaps we Liberals need to be a little more careful in our selection of candidates, although I don't think this is really the key. What we Liberals need to do is to stop taking for granted that we "own" the minority vote. Sure, on the issues we are right there with minorities across Canada. Being moderates lends itself to that. The thing is, when the Cons run at us, they will usually hit us with some "quick-win" approach that costs them nothing (ex; apology to Chinese Canadians), or something equally visible - but for which they could care less. They typically will do this rather than have actual social policy which helps minorities and underprivileged Canadians move ahead. I strongly urge our newly elected Multicultural Chair - as well as our new leadership - to do something in the way of a concerted Multiculturalism Policy for the lead-up to the next election.
We saw a leadership campaign in which bus-loads of South Asian (in particular) delegates were aggressively courted by all camps. It is time for the favor to be returned - for the good of Canadian minorities AND for the good of our party. If we fail - as a party - to secure a mainstay of our urban vote, we will struggle to retain some urban seats in the next federal election. Knowing our "glorious successes" against Conservatives in rural ridings, we may well be in trouble if we don't shore up our "bread and butter" vote. The party needs to begin a concerted campaign outlining what great leaders like Laurier, Pearson, Trudeau, and Cretien did for minorities and immigrants. I hope Mr. Amarjit Grewal (our new Multiculturalism Chair) is up to the challenge. Hopefully he'll get some help in consulting our leadership on engaging the multiculturalism issue in a general election (and before it). MPs like Ujjal Dusanj, Sukh Dhaliwal, Ruby Dhalla, and Navdeep Bains will all have to play a key role in this "Multiculturalism Renewal Process".
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Man, It's Nice Out Here
Fiendishly working illicitly online (like the pirate I think I am), I decided its time to fire off a quick post before one of my neighbors decides to turn off their wi-fi router... ; )Maybe... just maybe... I can get by out here in the GVRD without paying for cable (my house seems to be wired for free too)! I will have to thank my neighbors for their kind consideration (although I may just avoid the one beside me cuz I think it's a grow op). On second thought... maybe I will go thank them - they may just show their appreciation... ; )
Shout out to Matt in Hamilton, Dave in TO, Richard in Ottawa, all the Regina Crew, Chris in 'Toontown, and Neil and all the crew in Calgary. Will try to begin posting in earnest in the not to distant future. Once the haze of the New Year's celebrations begins to lift. Gotta be the best place on earth to party!
Viva Vancouver!
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Peace
Well, it's that time of year again... Looking forward to spending some time with family and friends. I noticed Harper took an opportunity to wish a couple of religions "the best" this holiday season. His buddy "Stock" decided to go a little further in spouting neo-Con gospel, by taking a shot at "spear-chuckers" (whatever he was insinuating with that comment, it certainly wasn't meant in a non-racial way).
I think I'd like to wish everyone the best in a very LIBERAL way:
PEACE
LOVE
GOODWILL
Have a great holiday everyone, and all the very best to you and your's in the New Year!
Here's to victory in 2007!!!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
What Conservatives Are Thinking Right Now... And Do They Really Think?
We've probably all had thoughts on what the Cons felt about potential turnouts for our leadership... This article sheds some light on what some of them thought. Regardless of what this indicates - and no matter what kind of line of Conservative BS it is - what the activities of these Cons points out is one very key fact: the CPC strongly feels we had several leadership candidates who could cause them harm. The very fact that they went through the great efforts they did at our convention outlines that they are afraid - they are very afraid.
While the "activist wing" on the right of the party worries about our next leader, the "red wing" of the Cons is actively working on their next leader. Right now the Red Tories are working on trying to build the bridges they require to pick their next great hope.
So... what are the "facts" so far?
1) We know the Cons are afraid of our chances after our leadership
2) We know the Cons are in a nosedive in Quebec
3) We know the Cons have been stuck in the 30-32% polling range for months (even without a Liberal leader)
4) We know Conservative members - including MPs are actively recruiting people (even folks they know are active Liberals) - for an upcoming leadership campaign
5) We know Harper is firing off "hail mary" after "hail mary" in hopes he can grasp both his party's, and the public's attention (these "hail mary's" include: the SSM vote; the Senate gambit)
Let's put aside any doubts we have in our minds that we - as a party - can engage the conservative threat. Let's keep moving forward and take the country back - for Canada's sake.
While the "activist wing" on the right of the party worries about our next leader, the "red wing" of the Cons is actively working on their next leader. Right now the Red Tories are working on trying to build the bridges they require to pick their next great hope.
So... what are the "facts" so far?
1) We know the Cons are afraid of our chances after our leadership
2) We know the Cons are in a nosedive in Quebec
3) We know the Cons have been stuck in the 30-32% polling range for months (even without a Liberal leader)
4) We know Conservative members - including MPs are actively recruiting people (even folks they know are active Liberals) - for an upcoming leadership campaign
5) We know Harper is firing off "hail mary" after "hail mary" in hopes he can grasp both his party's, and the public's attention (these "hail mary's" include: the SSM vote; the Senate gambit)
Let's put aside any doubts we have in our minds that we - as a party - can engage the conservative threat. Let's keep moving forward and take the country back - for Canada's sake.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Harper Thinks Eastern Farmers Are Not "Real" Farmers???
Found this on Prairie Fire's blog:
"Harper said Dion should go out West and talk to real farmers about what type of Wheat Board they want..."
I missed the clips from the debate, but if this is really something Harper has said about farmers, it certainly shows Canadians what he thinks of Eastern Farmers. Typical Harper (and typically Reformer) - always hating "the East". Yes, we know that the Cons have been crying about shutting down the Wheat Board for years. They have been angrily (as usual) screaming about how the Board is bad for the rich mega-acre farm special interest groups who have long supported no-one but conservatives.
As Liberals this statement by Harper presents an ideal launching point for a resurgence of our campaign in the rural areas of Southwestern Ontario, and Southern Quebec, as well as the rural Atlantic Provinces.
"Harper said Dion should go out West and talk to real farmers about what type of Wheat Board they want..."
I missed the clips from the debate, but if this is really something Harper has said about farmers, it certainly shows Canadians what he thinks of Eastern Farmers. Typical Harper (and typically Reformer) - always hating "the East". Yes, we know that the Cons have been crying about shutting down the Wheat Board for years. They have been angrily (as usual) screaming about how the Board is bad for the rich mega-acre farm special interest groups who have long supported no-one but conservatives.
As Liberals this statement by Harper presents an ideal launching point for a resurgence of our campaign in the rural areas of Southwestern Ontario, and Southern Quebec, as well as the rural Atlantic Provinces.
Friday, December 08, 2006
If An Election Were Held Today, 30%+ Of Quebecers Would Vote Liberal!!!
I know it's only a pre-Christmas poll, and maybe months from an election, but it is interesting to see these results from Ipsos.
We are sitting at 30% in Quebec - and that should translate into a few seats. Our gains across Canada have come mostly at the expense of the Cons (taking back moderate voters who threw their "sponsorship protest vote" away to the Cons). We also seem to have taken about 2% from the NDP - showing that the "soft NDP" vote is not as soft as some would think. Coming from Saskatchewan, I can clearly say that the NDP is a religion for a lot of folks and things like an idiotic leader making deals with their political opposites (Harpo's Cons) often does not sway them.
The "Nation Question" plays into what the Cons may be in for. The Cons shot themselves in the foot (feet?). Harpo the clown's gambit was that he would steal Iggy's thunder by talking "nation" before our leadership convention. The Cons were very afraid they would lose votes to us in the next election. All worked well for Harpo - until Iggy lost the leadership. All of a sudden, instead of someone battling him for "soft nationalist" votes (a'la Iggy), he now finds himself battling the author of the Clarity Act (although Harpo may argue with that statement), and he may just end up in a battle for federalist votes in PQ.
Now I do think we would have had solid gains - no matter which of the final 2 were our leader (I continue to think Iggy would/someday will be a great leader). I can't wait to see our new stars join our existing stars (like Ralph Goodale, Denis Coderre, etc.) in taking on the Cons in Parliament. In the words of Jean Cretien: "We have work to do"! We can maintain our momentum and win the next election - let's stay focused.
We are sitting at 30% in Quebec - and that should translate into a few seats. Our gains across Canada have come mostly at the expense of the Cons (taking back moderate voters who threw their "sponsorship protest vote" away to the Cons). We also seem to have taken about 2% from the NDP - showing that the "soft NDP" vote is not as soft as some would think. Coming from Saskatchewan, I can clearly say that the NDP is a religion for a lot of folks and things like an idiotic leader making deals with their political opposites (Harpo's Cons) often does not sway them.
The "Nation Question" plays into what the Cons may be in for. The Cons shot themselves in the foot (feet?). Harpo the clown's gambit was that he would steal Iggy's thunder by talking "nation" before our leadership convention. The Cons were very afraid they would lose votes to us in the next election. All worked well for Harpo - until Iggy lost the leadership. All of a sudden, instead of someone battling him for "soft nationalist" votes (a'la Iggy), he now finds himself battling the author of the Clarity Act (although Harpo may argue with that statement), and he may just end up in a battle for federalist votes in PQ.
Now I do think we would have had solid gains - no matter which of the final 2 were our leader (I continue to think Iggy would/someday will be a great leader). I can't wait to see our new stars join our existing stars (like Ralph Goodale, Denis Coderre, etc.) in taking on the Cons in Parliament. In the words of Jean Cretien: "We have work to do"! We can maintain our momentum and win the next election - let's stay focused.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
For Anyone Who Wanted to Hear What Iggy Said To His Team After The Convention? This Is A True Measure Of The Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF8UNTAI8e8
Wow! And this guys is only just warming up. We are in for good times folks. With Iggy on the front benches with Stephane, the sky's the limit...
Wow! And this guys is only just warming up. We are in for good times folks. With Iggy on the front benches with Stephane, the sky's the limit...
Monday, December 04, 2006
Best Parties From This Leadership Weekend
Okay, time to review some of the parties/hospitality suites at this weekend's incredible convention.Top Parties:
1) Sukh Dhaliwal's Suite at the Delta. Any party with free booze will top this list. Sukh's party was packed, and the room was busy until it got hard to breathe and delegates poured out into the vast Delta Centre-ville Mezzanine (and filled it too).
2) Dr. Ruby Dhalla's Hospitality Suite (Delta Penthouse). The mini-samosas were a hit. Again, an endless supply of free booze was a big part of it - as was the killer view of Montreal.
3) Young Liberals Event (Metropolis Nightclub). Great people meeting event. Not a good booze situation (one drink ticket), but the Young 'uns get much props for the souvenir shot glasses. Any Young Libs party has to make a "top parties" list, and this one definitely does. We closed the joint, and had some great pizza and poutine across the street...
4) Ken Dryden's Suite. Ken Dryden's hospitality suite, Ken Dryden hockey cards, and the man himself (able to sign autographs). Need we say more?
5) Scott Brison's Suite. Scott knows how to party. Let's just leave it at that.
6) Alberta Hospitality Suite. Alberta beef-on-a-bun. Mmmmm...
Honorable Mention:
4) GK's Montreal Smoked Meat Party... Montreal Smoked Meat - need anyone say any more? Unfortunately the meat only lasted the first hour or so, and late arrivals were SOL.
Worst Parties:
(You know who you are). Basically any party with a cash bar falls into this category. I mean c'mon... how the heck are young Liberals expected to survive if they can't get their free food and booze? Hospitality suites are supposed to be "hospitable".
1) Stephane's victory party. What party? Yes there were a lot of Liberals in the hotel, but a lot of GK's supporters stayed at the Hyatt (they had a pretty big party there; some were even talking to other's about Gerard's upcoming run at the leadership). Number one reason this party was a bit of a let-down? No free booze. Note to Stephane's organizers: When you just won the leadership of your party, try being a little Liberal with the booze, or at least have some food in the room... Oh yeah, and open a window... there were as many party-goers in the frigid hotel lobby (trying to cool off), as in the party rooms. One other thing: When rival candidate supporters come to pay tribute to your winner, you don't criticize them for their Iggy or Rae buttons... Just a hint at bridge-building.
2) Bob's W Event. Once again with the cash bar... We know the campaign had cash... Where'd it go (if not for the important thing like swinging delegates with booze)?
Will be reporting "live" from the BC Liberal Convention this upcoming year. Maybe the Alberta Convention (LPCA) and Sask Conventions too...
Cheers!
What a Weekend! Random Musings on the Montreal Convention
Wow! What a weekend! What a week! After months of crazy preparations, it all came down to this... A slew of solid candidates battled it out for leadership of our party. The speeches were great. The hospitality suites were great. The delegates were great. The City of Montreal was fabulous as always. What a weekend for our party. Congratulations to everyone on a battle well fought. Sure there were moments of anger and frustration - a lot of jostling during lineups to vote and get into the auditorium were the cause of a lot of this - one of my Iggy campaign co-workers was pushed around and spat on when he tried to speak to someone in the Rae area and a bunch of Dioners surrounded him. Regardless of these regular campaign blemishes, the convention was good for the party - and made great TV viewing.
Nothing was more dramatic than the "not knowing". Viewers at home - and national media types were glued to their TV sets and monitors as the events unfolded. And unfold they did. The odds-on favorite - supported by more Liberals than any other single candidate - was defeated on the forth ballot by a coalition of camps. In the end Stephane Dion persevered in a 54 to 45% margin.
It was great to see the "X-Prime Ministers" on stage throughout the convention. They may still not talk to each other a lot, but they made some valiant efforts to be seen together. Perhaps it was the lack of their "backroom staff" who seemed to hold more of the grudges than either of the PMs. It was refreshing to see the likes of Ms. Caderio (sp? tb) and a lot of the old Martin crew in the Dion/Kennedy camp. Of course most of the membership (and media) was aware of the presence of large numbers of former Cretienites in the Rae camp. One would have to say (after observing all of this) that regardless of the concentration of these "backroom staff" and confidantes in the Dion and Rae camps, there was enough of a spread of the "old school" Liberals from the Martin-Cretien "legacy" in all the camps that we can once and for all say that the old stupidity is finally behind us.
What now? Well, we have to get ready for an election that may come at any time. It was great to get a 6% bump in the polls this morning. Stephane will have to ensure he is focused on his environmental platform. Canadians are open to a frank discussion of the environment. He'll also need to look at Ignatieff's comprehensive environmental ideas. Stephane will need to ensure he renews the debate on the National Childcare Program - so caringly designed by Ken Dryden. He will need to ensure he carries out any promises he made to Gerard Kennedy - which would most likely include party reform. Dion will need to pursue "soft" NDP support that would have come to the Liberal Party under a Rae leadership. Finally, he will definitely have to engage Quebec federalists. He will need to give them hope, and a reason to feel good about the Liberal Party.
How will Canada react? Most importantly, how will Quebec react to him? How will Ontario and Western Canada view another Liberal from Quebec? A group of us did some informal polling as we tooled around Montreal this weekend after the Dion win. I always ask cabbies for their political opinions as I find that they are one of the most informed members of any community, and usually know the mood of the public. Of 10 cabbies we talked to we had 2 who were very supportive of Dion. They indicated they liked mainly his ideas on Afghanistan and on the environment. The eight others were not so kind: Several responded with the exact words: "We hate him". They indicated he was not liked by many Quebequois. As a loyal Liberal whose first allegiance is to the party (over any one person), I really hope our survey was as inaccurate as a survey can be when done fleetingly between various Montreal bars, and Liberal hospitality suites and victory parties.
Go get 'em Stephane! Vive la Canada!
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Vote To Keep Delegated Conventions
Here's a line from an email of a friend who sits on a few Conservative boards, and is a very active politico:
"I'm glad you are opposing Belinda's one member, one vote issue. I've said all along that the liberals have it right in how they elect a leader. You take the drama out of it and it becomes one boring leadership race. Look at this nonsense in Alberta. Any Joschmo can walk up and buy a membership right before voting.........absolutely ridiculous. Democracy should always happen in the ridings where the TRUE members actually show up to a meeting, meet the delegates, and vote on who should be going."
He's right. I don't think we as a party realize the value of a delegated convention, as we prepare to leap into the currently "en vogue" idea of what we want to call "one member, one vote". Let's examine that statement for a second. Is it really one member, one vote? What do we do right now? We allow our grassroots across the country to vote for both a candidate AND a delegate to represent that candidate. We consider many things when selecting our delegates, including their dedication to our candidate of choice, their ability to make a wise decision, and the work they've done for the riding and the party. We send (typically) solid people who can represent us well. Democracy in action.
Now let's look at our proposed idea: We want to let everyone who has a membership vote - no matter how "instant" a Liberal they are, or how ill-informed they are of the issues. These people may not have had a chance to meet any or all of the candidates, or had any opportunity to consider anything more about the candidates than what they hear in the media. This is our idea of a "fair" system? With this new proposed system, the focus of all candidates will quickly go from one of meeting party members and trying to convince them of the merits of their candidacy, to a focus on busing in hundreds of "instant Liberals" to stuff ballot boxes across the country.
So the logistics of the new proposal could get pretty ugly - no matter how much the strongly democratic words "one member, one vote" try to make it seem better. What about the grand spectacle of a delegated convention that we'd all miss out on? Many of us younger Liberals cut our teeth in the world of politics attending delegated leadership conventions. We recall watching in awe as Trudeau was victorious in 68, or a young upstart from Bae Comeau won the Tory leadership in the 80s. We were riveted to our TV sets as Cretien defeated Martin in 90, then swept to power months later. Regardless of political party we have always noticed an upswing in public interest during and shortly after a delegated convention. A party selecting a new leader in a strongly contested delegated convention has often swept into power - often with the momentum of the convention spurring everything. The weeks and months of free publicity leading up to a delegated convention - not to mention the HUGE media and public interest on the convention weekend is not something that can be bought - especially in this day of low cost campaigns (thanks to new campaign finance laws).
I can't say that I always could afford to go as a delegate to all conventions, but I was always able to find senior party members who helped with sponsoring my trip. The campaigns were always quite particular about working hard to ensure they got their people to the vote. This was important, as it really showed an ability to organize - something that is very important to a party thinking about going through a tough election fight requiring a well-organized campaign machine. What I did end up paying "out of pocket" (or out of parent's pocket) was something I felt happy about spending, as it was paid to the Party I love, and for a cause I was passionate about.
To be like everyone else, we could just go "one member, one vote" (in words alone), to make everyone imagine we're being more "grassroots" - just to watch our members suffer as "instant Liberals" run off with the votes to get their candidate out in front. Just talk to Alberta PCers to see what kind of mess they are involved in. Years from now we will lament the destruction of our very sound leadership process if we choose to go this route.
This weekend, please choose to support the existing leadership process.
Thank you!
"I'm glad you are opposing Belinda's one member, one vote issue. I've said all along that the liberals have it right in how they elect a leader. You take the drama out of it and it becomes one boring leadership race. Look at this nonsense in Alberta. Any Joschmo can walk up and buy a membership right before voting.........absolutely ridiculous. Democracy should always happen in the ridings where the TRUE members actually show up to a meeting, meet the delegates, and vote on who should be going."
He's right. I don't think we as a party realize the value of a delegated convention, as we prepare to leap into the currently "en vogue" idea of what we want to call "one member, one vote". Let's examine that statement for a second. Is it really one member, one vote? What do we do right now? We allow our grassroots across the country to vote for both a candidate AND a delegate to represent that candidate. We consider many things when selecting our delegates, including their dedication to our candidate of choice, their ability to make a wise decision, and the work they've done for the riding and the party. We send (typically) solid people who can represent us well. Democracy in action.
Now let's look at our proposed idea: We want to let everyone who has a membership vote - no matter how "instant" a Liberal they are, or how ill-informed they are of the issues. These people may not have had a chance to meet any or all of the candidates, or had any opportunity to consider anything more about the candidates than what they hear in the media. This is our idea of a "fair" system? With this new proposed system, the focus of all candidates will quickly go from one of meeting party members and trying to convince them of the merits of their candidacy, to a focus on busing in hundreds of "instant Liberals" to stuff ballot boxes across the country.
So the logistics of the new proposal could get pretty ugly - no matter how much the strongly democratic words "one member, one vote" try to make it seem better. What about the grand spectacle of a delegated convention that we'd all miss out on? Many of us younger Liberals cut our teeth in the world of politics attending delegated leadership conventions. We recall watching in awe as Trudeau was victorious in 68, or a young upstart from Bae Comeau won the Tory leadership in the 80s. We were riveted to our TV sets as Cretien defeated Martin in 90, then swept to power months later. Regardless of political party we have always noticed an upswing in public interest during and shortly after a delegated convention. A party selecting a new leader in a strongly contested delegated convention has often swept into power - often with the momentum of the convention spurring everything. The weeks and months of free publicity leading up to a delegated convention - not to mention the HUGE media and public interest on the convention weekend is not something that can be bought - especially in this day of low cost campaigns (thanks to new campaign finance laws).
I can't say that I always could afford to go as a delegate to all conventions, but I was always able to find senior party members who helped with sponsoring my trip. The campaigns were always quite particular about working hard to ensure they got their people to the vote. This was important, as it really showed an ability to organize - something that is very important to a party thinking about going through a tough election fight requiring a well-organized campaign machine. What I did end up paying "out of pocket" (or out of parent's pocket) was something I felt happy about spending, as it was paid to the Party I love, and for a cause I was passionate about.
To be like everyone else, we could just go "one member, one vote" (in words alone), to make everyone imagine we're being more "grassroots" - just to watch our members suffer as "instant Liberals" run off with the votes to get their candidate out in front. Just talk to Alberta PCers to see what kind of mess they are involved in. Years from now we will lament the destruction of our very sound leadership process if we choose to go this route.
This weekend, please choose to support the existing leadership process.
Thank you!
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Ideas - What Canada's Best Leaders Have Always Been About
For many months we have closely watched our leadership convention. We have watched a solid campaign, fought with honor. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, and to the Arctic, our membership have had many opportunities to meet each candidate. A solid debate has taken place - if not on stage, then at least in the blogs and via the media. Looking long and hard at all the candidates I decided I wanted to support those who brought forward new and progressive ideas for our party and our nation. With the large field of candidates we were (not surprisingly for Liberals) delighted by an exceptional debate. From the beginning the fresh ideas and educated opinions of Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion appealed to this voting delegate most. Ken Dryden's affable style and pragmatic solutions to Canadian issues were also high on the list.
As the campaign rolled on we all saw "shots" traded back and forth on various issues. All of the front-runners committed gaffes of one sort or another. Towards the end of the campaign we saw a more serious discussion about ideas. We saw the campaign coalesce into a serious discussion about Canada and this country's future.
Today, when we look at the frontrunners we see some clear distinctions:
- Ken Dryden is a great guy with some good ideas, but perhaps not the delegate support to seriously challenge the front-runners
- Bob Rae may not be as likable, and perhaps doesn't have the "baggage-free" past, but he has some real-world leadership experience (maybe not the best experience, but...) - in the wrong party
- Stephane Dion showed some great potential early on as the "surprise" candidate, who seemed to be "everyone's second choice". Things changed for Stephane when "angry Stephane" stepped out. Dion also missed some key opportunities to discuss ideas... being "former Environment Minister" was not enough when Ignatieff trumped him on environmental ideas... and getting beaten to the punch on the Quebec "nation" issue was not a good thing for the only Quebec candidate
- Gerard Kennedy has proven to be a "good guy", and "the kind of person this party needs in a future cabinet". Unfortunately for Gerard his lack of any serious pull in Quebec has hamstrung his campaign. Fighting it out with Harper in territories Harper is strongest in would not be the best situation for our party
- Finally, we come to Michael Ignatieff. Through the entire campaign Ignatieff has taken shots from other campaigns about his voluminous writings and some public statements. No matter how much flak the rookie MP has taken, he has risen above it all to come shooting back with more fresh ideas. He has been careful not to criticize the other campaigns or candidates (as a front-runner must be mindful of).
As the campaign comes to a close Michael Ignatieff seems to be the most "Prime-Ministerial" of the candidates. His powerful public persona has lent him an air of confidence and capability. One resounding fact permeates the entire Ignatieff campaign: This is a man who has given a LOT of thought to the Canadian equation. He has thought through the challenges and opportunities this land faces, and has come up with some significant thoughts on where we should go - and how to get there. It becomes apparent from speaking with Mr. Ignatieff that his ideas were not simply "hatched" for this campaign (as those of some other candidates may have been - to wit: the Bob Rae "campaigns are not about ideas" statement). Ignatieff displays thought patterns that have been at work since the 1968 leadership contest, during which he was a Trudeau campaign team member. Since that time it is obvious he has been touched by the Trudeau vision for constantly challenging this country with fresh ideas.
In Montreal this upcoming weekend I will be casting my ballot for Michael Ignatieff. I urge everyone to carefully think about what fresh ideas and a clear vision will mean for us. Last election we were defeated for a lack of ideas - all we could do was criticize Harper. Voters saw Harper as having ideas and vision - even if they did not agree with all of it, the fact was that he had given serious thought to where he wanted to take Canada. We need to ensure we have a leader who can beat Harper in the national debate, while proving to Canadians that we continue to be the party of new thought and ideas.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Alberta: The Stepford Province
I've lived throughout Canada, and many places in the world, but I have seen few places as homogeneously conservative as Alberta (Texas may compare). Alberta does have a conservative "heritage", but it is truly frightening to see the masses vote unashamedly Conservative for so many years. The lunacy of it all is that even groups who typically would/should never vote conservative DO here in the good 'ol AB. Union workers, the working poor, immigrants and minorities, even teachers and nurses seem to support the Cons more than any other one party.
This political "one-think" is extremely bizarre... something of a real-life "Stepford Province". It is so frighteningly conservative that, while conservative Albertans and their national sounding-boards (National "Pest", Global) have bashed Ontarians for the past 10 years or so (for voting Liberal federally), they deny their own 40-plus year inbred marriage to conservatism - both federal and provincial. Yup, I used the word "inbred", and inbred is really what Alberta politics is all about. It's not about building bridges, accepting newcomers, and new ideas... rather, it is about "you're either with us, or "agin'" us".
What will it take to change the Albertan outlook? Probably the next 10/15 yrs. - enough time for alternative fuels to come to the forefront - or for oil supplies to diminish enough to cause this to occur quicker. Change may also come with the influx of Canadians and foreigners bringing modern political outlooks to Alberta (although to count on that may be folly in most cases, since many of the most conservative-minded people in neighboring provinces have run to Alberta, and praise it as a gleaming bastion of conservativeness).
In reality, Albertans (some of the richer ones anyway) have benefited from that "black gold" shooting out of the ground. Anyone could govern the province through the excesses of riches it has Bacchanally bathed in over the past decades. Heck, make it a kindergarten class project. The crazy riches shooting out of the ground have led to the open-armed welcome of foreign-owned oil companies, American-based venture capitalists, and even the Enrons of the world. Adam Smith would have been proud to watch this new blameless, conscience-less, angry capitalism run rampant over the leeward plains of the rockies. The Albertan "success story" (at the cost of medicare, seniors, children in schools, infrastructure maintenance, minorities, and social justice) has created a bit of a beacon for a lot of Canada - of promised riches (don't mention the fact that the real-world salaries are not much higher, if at all, and come in the face of rampant inflation and cost-of-living increases). The beacon shone brightly enough for Canadians (less than 1/2 of us) to actually vote into power an Alberta-based neoCon government... just barely.
This winter it is time for us to throw out the Stepford government... It may all start with one of Harper's robot servants breaking down and freaking out at a public event (ie: speak in public, without Shrub's "coles-notes"). One can only hope...
This political "one-think" is extremely bizarre... something of a real-life "Stepford Province". It is so frighteningly conservative that, while conservative Albertans and their national sounding-boards (National "Pest", Global) have bashed Ontarians for the past 10 years or so (for voting Liberal federally), they deny their own 40-plus year inbred marriage to conservatism - both federal and provincial. Yup, I used the word "inbred", and inbred is really what Alberta politics is all about. It's not about building bridges, accepting newcomers, and new ideas... rather, it is about "you're either with us, or "agin'" us".
What will it take to change the Albertan outlook? Probably the next 10/15 yrs. - enough time for alternative fuels to come to the forefront - or for oil supplies to diminish enough to cause this to occur quicker. Change may also come with the influx of Canadians and foreigners bringing modern political outlooks to Alberta (although to count on that may be folly in most cases, since many of the most conservative-minded people in neighboring provinces have run to Alberta, and praise it as a gleaming bastion of conservativeness).
In reality, Albertans (some of the richer ones anyway) have benefited from that "black gold" shooting out of the ground. Anyone could govern the province through the excesses of riches it has Bacchanally bathed in over the past decades. Heck, make it a kindergarten class project. The crazy riches shooting out of the ground have led to the open-armed welcome of foreign-owned oil companies, American-based venture capitalists, and even the Enrons of the world. Adam Smith would have been proud to watch this new blameless, conscience-less, angry capitalism run rampant over the leeward plains of the rockies. The Albertan "success story" (at the cost of medicare, seniors, children in schools, infrastructure maintenance, minorities, and social justice) has created a bit of a beacon for a lot of Canada - of promised riches (don't mention the fact that the real-world salaries are not much higher, if at all, and come in the face of rampant inflation and cost-of-living increases). The beacon shone brightly enough for Canadians (less than 1/2 of us) to actually vote into power an Alberta-based neoCon government... just barely.
This winter it is time for us to throw out the Stepford government... It may all start with one of Harper's robot servants breaking down and freaking out at a public event (ie: speak in public, without Shrub's "coles-notes"). One can only hope...
Monday, November 20, 2006
Stephen Harper, Conservative "Morals", and Safe Injection Sites
Now that a comprehensive study has shown safe injection sites do work, what exactly will the neoCon government's response be??? It will be interesting to see what Harper does. Most likely the Cons will find plenty of other things to screw up - so we won't likely hear about the program the Cons cut funding to earlier in the year.
In a nutshell typical conservative rhetoric always argues for extreme measures when dealing with crime or moral issues. One things conservatives hate - science. They'll write it off as "the" faulty science they hope to believe it is. While they're quick to find a miniscule group of supporters who can argue against the majority of the scientific community, conservatives have found new ways to cast doubt on scientific fact. Like the Inquisition hundreds of years ago, it is always conservatives in society who want to bury their heads in the sand. It's great to see a very public study confirm safe injection sites do work. Now it's our duty to ensure the rest of Canada keeps hearing this message.
In a nutshell typical conservative rhetoric always argues for extreme measures when dealing with crime or moral issues. One things conservatives hate - science. They'll write it off as "the" faulty science they hope to believe it is. While they're quick to find a miniscule group of supporters who can argue against the majority of the scientific community, conservatives have found new ways to cast doubt on scientific fact. Like the Inquisition hundreds of years ago, it is always conservatives in society who want to bury their heads in the sand. It's great to see a very public study confirm safe injection sites do work. Now it's our duty to ensure the rest of Canada keeps hearing this message.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Conservative's China Folly - Or Is It Their Plan???
Liberal Catnip's post
really leads one to think about the perilous economic situation the Harper's regime seem to be taking us towards... I for one have always felt that Canada needs to do more to remove some of our eggs from the NAFTA/US trade basket, and seek out the world's two fastest growing economies - India and China. It seems that Harper's conservative ideologues are just too repelled by the label "communist" to want to ensure Canada's economic future. Heck, the Cons always ripped any party to the left of their "practical fascism"as being "pinkos" or "commies". We all have neo-con buddies who throw that word around thinking the slur has an effect on the people it is hurled at.
We as Liberals stand more for human rights and citizen's rights than any conservative movement ever has - it is just part of the very definition of the parties. When Harper's lackies speak about the human rights abuses in China, they conveniently choose not to discuss human rights abuses in "allied" lands like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Russia, and yes, our good buddies to the south (the US). Its not about the rights, but about who supports our conservative ideologue values... Like the Bushists the Harpies are extremists to the core. Like the Bushists they will lead us to economic ruin.
While our NAFTA partners decline - Mexico in squalid poverty, and the US in economic ruin (from trying to be the world policeman, and flex their muscles) - India and China grow exponentially. Canada is on a crossroads that we couldn't even dream of just 50 years ago: we're located at the economic crossroads between the EU, Russia, Japan, the US, and of course China and Asia. With the melting icecap we are going to see the opening of the Northwest Passage within 10 to 15 years. Canada is in the perfect location to exploit this fact. Why would European shipping traverse the Panama Canal to China and Japan when they can just cut across Canada's north? Northern Canada would also benefit immensely from this routing - maybe even deep sea ports and railways across the permafrost. Of course the Americans and their Conservative cousins around the world (all of whom have heavily invested in stock in American corporations) stand to lose a lot if cargo ceases shipping via the Panama. The American-backed world-wide neoconservative movement has everything to gain from ensuring Canada's "Northwest Passage" does not become Europe and Asia's preferred trade route.
Canada NEEDS both China and India - heck, why not all of Asia? We need to hook up with growing trade partners who need both our resources and expertise. Cretien and Martin both understood this, hence our Team Canada Trade Missions. WE need to hurry up and get back in power so we can retain any bridges we've built with the new Asian Tigers.
really leads one to think about the perilous economic situation the Harper's regime seem to be taking us towards... I for one have always felt that Canada needs to do more to remove some of our eggs from the NAFTA/US trade basket, and seek out the world's two fastest growing economies - India and China. It seems that Harper's conservative ideologues are just too repelled by the label "communist" to want to ensure Canada's economic future. Heck, the Cons always ripped any party to the left of their "practical fascism"as being "pinkos" or "commies". We all have neo-con buddies who throw that word around thinking the slur has an effect on the people it is hurled at.
We as Liberals stand more for human rights and citizen's rights than any conservative movement ever has - it is just part of the very definition of the parties. When Harper's lackies speak about the human rights abuses in China, they conveniently choose not to discuss human rights abuses in "allied" lands like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Russia, and yes, our good buddies to the south (the US). Its not about the rights, but about who supports our conservative ideologue values... Like the Bushists the Harpies are extremists to the core. Like the Bushists they will lead us to economic ruin.
While our NAFTA partners decline - Mexico in squalid poverty, and the US in economic ruin (from trying to be the world policeman, and flex their muscles) - India and China grow exponentially. Canada is on a crossroads that we couldn't even dream of just 50 years ago: we're located at the economic crossroads between the EU, Russia, Japan, the US, and of course China and Asia. With the melting icecap we are going to see the opening of the Northwest Passage within 10 to 15 years. Canada is in the perfect location to exploit this fact. Why would European shipping traverse the Panama Canal to China and Japan when they can just cut across Canada's north? Northern Canada would also benefit immensely from this routing - maybe even deep sea ports and railways across the permafrost. Of course the Americans and their Conservative cousins around the world (all of whom have heavily invested in stock in American corporations) stand to lose a lot if cargo ceases shipping via the Panama. The American-backed world-wide neoconservative movement has everything to gain from ensuring Canada's "Northwest Passage" does not become Europe and Asia's preferred trade route.
Canada NEEDS both China and India - heck, why not all of Asia? We need to hook up with growing trade partners who need both our resources and expertise. Cretien and Martin both understood this, hence our Team Canada Trade Missions. WE need to hurry up and get back in power so we can retain any bridges we've built with the new Asian Tigers.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Income Trusts: Harper's "National Energy Program"
It's rare that you pass through any political discussion in Alberta, tell someone you're a Liberal, and not get the usual mouth-foaming seething angry comments about the NEP, Trudeau, and Liberals in general. There are Albertans that were never directly hurt by it, who talk about the NEP like it was the boogey man, or maybe a curse brought to them by the Devil himself... (regardless of how painfully obvious it is to any non-foaming-at-the-mouth person that a global recession was more to blame for Alberta's early 80s woes than any federal policy designed to keep the nation running).
For decades the "mouth-foamers" couldn't stop their furious hateful rants - I mean, you gotta see one of these folks - you honestly would think they need a straightjacket. Now, it appears PM Shrub has given the rest of Canada (and a lot of Albertans) something new to seeth over... the whole income trust scenario.
Now, we will need to put this into perspective: the global economy is doing quite well right now (with the exception of some key players - like the US), so we probably aren't going to see a whole lot of bankruptcies due to this. Still, thousands of people stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was sad to see them on TV with their woeful stories. A lot of people are very upset. Funny thing is a lot of these folks are Albertans.
One thing is for certain - Liberals, by our very nature, tend to be a lot less likely to be raving seething, or "angry". So while an Eastern, Ontario-based company's moves led to Harper's quick "fix", it likely won't lead to the blanket dislike we saw in Alberta. As a matter of fact, Harper's henchmen probably never even realized they were punishing the oil barons of their "home province" more than some Eastern corporation...
Will the income trust issue become a major election matter? Will it remain on people's minds for years to come? It remains for history to tell. At the very least we can expect a lot of (formerly) wealthy Alberta Conservatives to donate a lot less (if anything) to the federal Cons in the upcoming election. Good for us.
For decades the "mouth-foamers" couldn't stop their furious hateful rants - I mean, you gotta see one of these folks - you honestly would think they need a straightjacket. Now, it appears PM Shrub has given the rest of Canada (and a lot of Albertans) something new to seeth over... the whole income trust scenario.
Now, we will need to put this into perspective: the global economy is doing quite well right now (with the exception of some key players - like the US), so we probably aren't going to see a whole lot of bankruptcies due to this. Still, thousands of people stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. It was sad to see them on TV with their woeful stories. A lot of people are very upset. Funny thing is a lot of these folks are Albertans.
One thing is for certain - Liberals, by our very nature, tend to be a lot less likely to be raving seething, or "angry". So while an Eastern, Ontario-based company's moves led to Harper's quick "fix", it likely won't lead to the blanket dislike we saw in Alberta. As a matter of fact, Harper's henchmen probably never even realized they were punishing the oil barons of their "home province" more than some Eastern corporation...
Will the income trust issue become a major election matter? Will it remain on people's minds for years to come? It remains for history to tell. At the very least we can expect a lot of (formerly) wealthy Alberta Conservatives to donate a lot less (if anything) to the federal Cons in the upcoming election. Good for us.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Stephen Harper's $Billion "Boondoggle"; Income Trusts, and other Fine Things
The Conservative crash and burn continues this week:
We heard Harper and his henchmen/women cry for years about a gun registry (that actually worked), because of the cost overruns they said were ridiculously large. Today we hear news of the Con's own government "missing" estimates on the cost of arming Canada's Border Guards. The original $101 Million estimate can be thrown out the window now, and the Cons can start telling us how much it will really cost to arm all our border guards. The fact that it wasn't even the Con MPs, but rather a member of the Border Service who actually revealed the new numbers, shows that the Cons had no plans to reveal the true numbers. These real numbers were tenfold the original claim - whoa... another Billion Dollar Boondoggle? Mr. Harper? Shrub??? Say it ain't so!!!
"Mr. Harper - you're a liar..." These were the words of one Montreal resturaunteur after hearing about the income trust changes. The fact is that the Conservative government's integrity is what's at question here - not the pros or cons of income trusts. The simple fact is: "Canada's New Government" lied to voters on a very blatant and clear promise not to tax income trusts.
What will the next weeks/months bring? We can only imagine. Hang on - this is going to be one lively election!
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Layton Good For Liberals
We may love to poke fun at him. We may enjoy his tireless attempts at populism - all the while forgetting his core NDP supporters. We may laugh at his antics. We all deride him for being the cause of this Harper government.
Whatever we think about Jacko, we are starting to see how he is worthwhile to our party as the leader of the NDP than he would be replaced by someone, er... ummm... let's just say "competent".
Jacko will keep playing with his neoCon friends, all the while alienating more of his left of center supporters... The whole idea of a party two steps left of center even talking with Cons is ludicrous. Yet "wacko Jacko" will persist. His "socialist principles" will be sold out for a fleeting brush with fame. While this carries on, more NDP supporters will siphon off to the most logical benefactor, or course (us).
If Layton is "clipped" by his party in the next several months, we may see him replaced by someone better able to solidify core NDP supporters. Let's hope this does not happen anytime soon.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Note To All Leadership Camp Stalwarts:
Grow up! We have wax museum dummies to beat up...
JC had a great line he used throughout the 93 campaign: "We have work to do!" Well, we as a party have LOTS of work to do to knock off Harper and his neoCon cronies. It's great to have a lively debate, but we need to ensure we are being constructive in our criticism.
We are a great party, and we will adapt to any condition (we always have), but we have to adjust to fighting a new enemy. This enemy is one who uses a right wing dominated press effectively. This enemy takes advantage of the current Western Societal need to be a "tough guy" and respond quickly with overwhelming force, even if it means making the wrong decision. This enemy is moving Canadian society to the right in subtle shifts of small parts of our liberal democracy. If we blink we may just miss what is going on...
We need to start focusing most of our energies towards defeating Harper and his band of wax museum dummies. If we have pent up aggression left over from the leadership battles, let's use it on two important bye-elections coming up in November. Imagine winning those two contests prior to the next federal campaign. Shrub will be quaking in his tighty-whities...
JC had a great line he used throughout the 93 campaign: "We have work to do!" Well, we as a party have LOTS of work to do to knock off Harper and his neoCon cronies. It's great to have a lively debate, but we need to ensure we are being constructive in our criticism.
We are a great party, and we will adapt to any condition (we always have), but we have to adjust to fighting a new enemy. This enemy is one who uses a right wing dominated press effectively. This enemy takes advantage of the current Western Societal need to be a "tough guy" and respond quickly with overwhelming force, even if it means making the wrong decision. This enemy is moving Canadian society to the right in subtle shifts of small parts of our liberal democracy. If we blink we may just miss what is going on...
We need to start focusing most of our energies towards defeating Harper and his band of wax museum dummies. If we have pent up aggression left over from the leadership battles, let's use it on two important bye-elections coming up in November. Imagine winning those two contests prior to the next federal campaign. Shrub will be quaking in his tighty-whities...
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Rae and Ignatieff Looking More & More "Prime-Ministerial"
Wow! What a difference a few weeks and a poll or two make. We currently have two very strong contenders atop the Liberal Leadership race. Both offer something different in the way of style, but I think it is fair and safe to say that both approach the party equation from Center or Center Left. People think of Rae as the NDP Premier of a 1980s Ontario. I think we all forget that as Liberal democracies mature, their denizens tend to become more "liberal democratic" over time. Rae is probably a lot closer to Center today than he ever was. Michael Ignatieff is Center-Left, regardless of what detractors say.
Michael Ignatieff has really developed through this race, and we see his stage presence become better and better each week. It really does look like the final contest/ballot (Dion/Kennedy supporters, please don't hate) will come down to a contest between the two. I think as responsible Liberals we need to stop the "mud-slinging" between all the camps. One of these four will be our leader, and we need to ensure we don't saddle them with any baggage coming out of the convention. Ignatieff is well-spoken, a commanding figure, a statesman, and has no reason to have to prove that he stands for global human rights - he does. Bob Rae could prove to be popular in Ontario (especially urban Ontario). Stephane Dion does have the cajones to be "tough", and can speak English well. GK - well, he IS still popular in some parts of the West (we can at least give him that can't we?). Let's really chose NICE things to say, and debate the candidates strengths and weaknesses in a frank and open manner - without twisting things and taking public shots...
I think a lot of people (even some Liberals who support him) had the little fear in the back of our minds about Ontario seats if Bob Rae were to become leader. Certainly the Cons will try to paint him as a "big spender" who spent the Ontario economy into the ground. However, have we ever thought what the urban Ontario voters may be thinking now? Let's see: Ontario economy not doing as well as usual. New Harper gov't basically "hates" Ontario (especially urban/905 Ontario). Harper is not willing to spend anything on social programs, infrastructure, education, women, minorities, etc. Yes, he makes shallow platitudes and miniscule spending announcements in areas where neo-Cons can make concessions, but basically he refuses to spend anything on the social programs Ontario really needs right now. Perhaps what Ontarians really WANT right now is a "spender" as a PM. A spender FROM Ontario, who actually LIKES the province? Hmmm... Makes me wonder.
Now I don't want this to sound like an "endorsement" of Bobby - because it is most certainly not... It is just an observation on why the recent Globe poll may have found Rae to be Ontarian's favorite choice among our leadership hopefuls. One needs to keep in mind that the spread from 1 to 4 was less than 10 percent, so Rae just may be a name everyone is familiar with...
Since we all know that one of these 4 will be leader (and by default, PM), let's try to be a little more civil - even on these blogs... Peace out.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Dion Goes on Offensive... Again... But....
(Thanks to Le Devior for the cartoon I linked to in this post).
I've been contemplating Stephane Dion as a choice for leader for some time now. He is certainly one of the top choices for me. I like his intelligence, I like his wit, I like his defence of the good things we did in the past 13 years as a party... Hey! Wait a minute... It is good to embrace a solid record - just not a good idea to lay yourself out for Stephen Harper to pick apart 4 months from now.
Mr. Dion was a terrific Intergovernmental Affairs/Unity Minister, but he really needs to reconsider his embracing the Environment as his "cause celebre'" in this leadership campaign. To avoid sounding disingenuous he needs to state that he "had a plan", but was unable to convince the two caucuses he worked with of that plan's value. Yes, we all agree that it should not be this way, but we know the Con Team and Shrub are just waiting to pound on our new leader - especially if he is able to gain party leadership simply by talking about the environment... an issue we were not completely successful with - on his watch.
Having said all the silly stuff I just did above, I still think Mr. Dion has to be one of the top contenders for leader (and eventually PM). I like his tenacity. I like his ideas. He just really needs to distance himself from JC and PM a little. Don't wear it Stephane, or you won't be a lot of our choice for leader...
How were the debates? Nothing I add here will really clarify anything better than 150-some-odd other blogs. Here's my take: No-one dropped the ball clearly enough for it to matter 6 weeks prior to the convention. It would have been hard for one of 8 candidates to strike a "knockout punch", or "score the TD". Yes, some "passes were missed" - a few opportunities slipped by.
Ignatieff certainly weathered a storm quite well - and this is something that should speak for his resilience.
Stephane was firing on all cylinders.
GK was GK... slick and "sound-bitey".
Joe spoke well (and, he always does - when he's not calling the most diverse party in our land... discriminatory (to put it kindly).
Scott Brison is another favorite of mine. He is honestly a lot of fun to listen to. He always finds space for the gut-busting one-liner. Hope this convention is the beginning of something bigger for Scott.
MHF is sharp, witty, and bound for stardom - just not leader this time around.
Ken Dryden continues to be the "Super-Liberal". He is a Liberal through-and-through. Wish he had a stronger organization, as he could be a real factor.
What about Bob? If anyone took a few unexpected shots (re: Dion) during this debate, if was our new friend Bob. It appears that as Dion and GK jockey for position they both will be taking more and more shots at Bob. It could get nasty, as everyone wants to be in the "final two", and we all know Ignatieff pretty much has one of those spots sewn up. This think won't be ending on the 2nd ballot... Not until the jockeying for 2nd is done will the final round begin in earnest.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The "Final Four", Kennedy/Dion Camps Trade Shots, and other Scuttlebutt
So, we're hearing a lot about the "Final Four", as it refers to our leadership contest. I don't think we can't be so sure that one of the "back markers" couldn't squeeze into the picture... Someone like a Dryden, for example, could have some influence on the final result.
Let's look at the potential movement first. Looking at the top two, you don't really see movement early on from these two camps - not for a ballot or two - simply because they are the current leaders. Until one of Kennedy or Dion have a surge, the Rae people will also probably stand pretty firm. The Kennedy folks seem to be the most likely to travel to Rae early, but there are a LOT of Western Kennedy supporters looking at Ignatieff on the second ballot.
The blogs really seem to demonstrate a lot of shots being traded back and forth between the Kennedy and Dion camps. It's really starting to look like a heated battle. The barbs are now starting to get nasty. I might just be making an "inside" observation, since I'm relying more on what I see in the blogs and what my friends in both camps tell me - the story may be different from the angle the general public observes. From the seething dislike building up between these two camps, it seems more and more likely that supporters of both will prefer to oppose each other as the convention gets later and later in the rounds.
I'm starting to think (like a lot of others I've spoken with) that regardless of the end results both Dion and Kennedy will have a considerable impact on the eventual outcome. All the verbal shots and accusations we're seeing between the camps right now are just symptoms of the "jockeying for position" both groups are currently engaged in. The "back markers", while potentially not winning the contest, have enough votes to be able to influence - at the very least - the battle for 3rd place, and eventually impacting the choice for leader.
One thing is for certain: this is going to be a great convention, and I really can't wait to be a part of it all, in the city which really should take credit for the birth of modern Canadian liberalism...
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Breaking News: Kennedy Camp to be Taken to Task for Richmond BC SuperWeekend Shenanigans
Just got out to the GVRD, and started hearing the scuttlebut about some interesting goings-on from Super Weekend. Apparently there were some "not-so-niceties" carried out by members of the Rae and Kennedy camps in DSMs in Richmond BC.
Sources indicate the events of the weekend need to be investigated, and include the following: Two bus-loads of Kennedy supporters pulling into a DSM parking lot, blocking off access to other vehicles, unloading their voters, then having their supporters block access to the meetings by any of the other camps. It was noted that the Parks Dept. called the police to one of the Richmond meetings to have two of the Kennedy buses towed. From what we have uncovered, the Kennedy buses were moved when the police arrived on scene.
It was reported that similar interesting events involved the Rae camp.
WesternGrit is going to do some more investigating this weekend, and see if there is any more information on this situation. From what we know, this could well have been a bad judgement call by the two camps, and nothing more. Still, the incidents do bear further investigation - considering we want to do what we can to ensure our party remains cleaner than the other federal parties when it comes to these types of things during leadership times. Rae and Kennedy are both good men, and we know they will make efforts to channel the zeal of their supporters.
While we all love good-old-fashioned, roll-up-the-sleeves politics, we need to make sure the image remains clean. When we need to call police to ensure voters can enter a DSM, we really need to think about what that does to image. I mention that word because image is really all it is... We know that all political parties have similar situations arise during different voting events. We have seen the Federal Conservatives being taken to court by disaffected Cons who were unable to win nominations in various ridings. In those cases, the irregularities were actually transgressions by the national party - a FAR more serious issue.
We know we're better than the Cons - let's just keep it that way.
More on this story in the next few days.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
WesternGrit Off to BC
Will be off to the beautiful province for a few days to celebrate Thanksgiving. Looking forward to some good Turduckhen... Very warm and festive Thanksgiving wishes to all my fellow Liberals - from all the leadership camps.
Looking forward to seeing everyone in Montreal.
Looking forward to seeing everyone in Montreal.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Ignatieff Triumphs in Calgary SW (Shrub's Back Yard)
(Calgary, Sept 30 2006) Michael Ignatieff won the Calgary SW delegate balloting by one delegate at a joint meeting for Calgary South and SW. A 3-way tie topped the Calgary SE results (Ignatieff, Dion, Kennedy had 4 each; Ray=1)
The results from the riding:
Ignatieff 5
Dion 4
Kennedy 4
Brison 0
Dryden 0
Hall F. 0
Rae 0
Volpe 0
A sign of the cameraderie between the various camps, the local Rae scrutineer shook hands with everyone prior to leaving, and wished everyone well. After all ballots were counted and certified, scrutineers and agents for Ignatieff, Dion, and Kennedy shared beers and talked politics. Stories were shared about campaigns past. A common theme was the need to defeat Harper in the next election.
The voting day went very smoothly. There were no arguments, and all was handled appropriately from the organizational level. There were some fun barbs traded between several representatives of the various camps - all resulting in incredible mirth.
WesternGrit has to say, this Liberal hopes all the DSMs go this way. Here's to Canada! Here's to the Liberal Party of Canada!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Open Letter To Liberals
Canada's "grand old party"... Hmmm...
We all know we'll be back. Maybe even soon. So, it pains us even more to see the useless snivelling and sniping we currently have going on... just days prior to our DSMs. To top it off, we have former Cretien and Martin supporters taking public shots at each other - just when we start to see a recovery in the polls, and a real chance we could be rid of Harper in the next election.
Why do you need to have press conferences where you attack other leadership hopefulls? Why do you feel the need to write books to support your arguments when taking the "high road" really means, shut up and let the next generation of leaders step up? Why does the biggest story of the day have to be a 16-year-old power struggle - mainly between the lackies of two decent men, when the Conservatives are busy cutting a BILLION DOLLARS of funding required by programs for the weak and voiceless... If you really got into politics to serve, then why not speak out about this travesty... The sooner you begin acting like concerned politicians the sooner someone may overlook your past indiscretions...
Jean Cretien led Canada through 3 great terms. Paul Martin had a chance to be PM too. We all enjoyed years of centrist government. Great. Stop living in a dream world. That last little wisp of success was 2004 - maybe even 2003 (since we stopped getting any good press). Time to start thinking about how we will defeat the Cons - over even maintain our seat totals. That's right folks... It's not just going to be "get coronated as leader, and the Cons will fall". We are going to need vision, character, and focus to beat Harper's Cons.
The next time you open your mouths, think clearly about the words that flow through them. If you can't find anything party-positive to say, then just shut up!
We all know we'll be back. Maybe even soon. So, it pains us even more to see the useless snivelling and sniping we currently have going on... just days prior to our DSMs. To top it off, we have former Cretien and Martin supporters taking public shots at each other - just when we start to see a recovery in the polls, and a real chance we could be rid of Harper in the next election.
Why do you need to have press conferences where you attack other leadership hopefulls? Why do you feel the need to write books to support your arguments when taking the "high road" really means, shut up and let the next generation of leaders step up? Why does the biggest story of the day have to be a 16-year-old power struggle - mainly between the lackies of two decent men, when the Conservatives are busy cutting a BILLION DOLLARS of funding required by programs for the weak and voiceless... If you really got into politics to serve, then why not speak out about this travesty... The sooner you begin acting like concerned politicians the sooner someone may overlook your past indiscretions...
Jean Cretien led Canada through 3 great terms. Paul Martin had a chance to be PM too. We all enjoyed years of centrist government. Great. Stop living in a dream world. That last little wisp of success was 2004 - maybe even 2003 (since we stopped getting any good press). Time to start thinking about how we will defeat the Cons - over even maintain our seat totals. That's right folks... It's not just going to be "get coronated as leader, and the Cons will fall". We are going to need vision, character, and focus to beat Harper's Cons.
The next time you open your mouths, think clearly about the words that flow through them. If you can't find anything party-positive to say, then just shut up!
Thursday, September 14, 2006
SNL's Norm MacDonald - Peter McKay "Crocodile F#cker"
Apparently Peter "the Great" has a new nickname... Seen in the picture to the left, Peter could hardly control his enthusiasm for his new American best friend.
Throughout history royal families of neighboring kingdoms would "hook up" their kids to ensure peace and prosperity, while ensuring continued in-breeding. With the recent goings on between Condi and Peetie, and the Conservative government's kissing up to the US cousins, it remains a curiousity as to who will be f#ing whom...
Norm MacDonald hit it right on the head tonight - on the Daily Show - when he stated "that guy will f#ck anything...", then added "there was a rumor going around Canada a few years ago that he f#cks crocodiles... Norm (a Canadian by birth) continued to roast/toast Peetie and Condi, while host Jon Stewart was ROFL...
Crocodile F#cker... Hehehe... Norm MacDonald is truly a funny guy. Wonder what he would dub PM Cartman???
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
We NEED Stronger Gun Control
It was only a matter of time. A matter of time before another unnecessary act of violence took place on Canadian soil. With an increasingly Americanized view on firearms (re: killing tools), we Canadians are ALL responsible for what occurred today in Montreal.
For years there has been a debate (nay, battle) between the right wing (Reform/Alliance/Conservatives) advocating less gun control, and an Americanization of our system, and the rest of Canada (Lib, NDP, Bloc) preferring a more civilized society. While I am a proud Liberal, I can say - without equivocation - that our last government spent entirely too much time kowtowing to the rhetoric of a handful of angry gun-nuts (who had a loud, rich, American-backed gun lobby on their side), rather than being more concerned about prevention. While Mr. Cretien's gov't created a registry to help combat gun crime (which worked VERY effectively - ask the police who used it 5000 times per day), Mr. Martin's weaker gov't allowed itself to be bullied by the neo-Cons.
This sickening and horrifying event - aimed at our society's youngest, best, and brightest - is a really good time for us to go back to our roots (as a party), and DEMAND STRONGER GUN CONTROL. We need to take a strong stand right now. We need to stake our claim on the issue, and let Shrub (Stevie Bush Jr.) try to defend the arms industry and gun nuts... Not only will we be standing up for the victims, and ordinary Canadians everywhere, but we will also be reuniting with multitudes of our moderate Quebec supporters - at a time where we both need each other badly.
We need Bill Graham to stand up and condemn this senseless act - AND - ensure we take a very traditional, moderate, Liberal approach on it. Let's ensure that we work to increase gun control today - so our children never have to face this again... Mr. Graham? You have the floor...
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Yes, Dammit! We ALL Support Our Troops!!!
Is anyone else getting tired of neoCons incessantly using our troops as an excuse for anything? We've seen it in the US for years: "You're either with us, or 'agin' us". If you object to an event, or the way a mission is run, you suddenly become "against our troops". A person speaking in favor of the troop's safety somehow is construed as against them. What a conservative crock of shit.
Good liberals, we've put up with this long enough. I support our troops, you support our troops. Every Canadian out there supports our troops. We only differ in how we support them. Not even the most hawkish of hawks will pick up a gun and go over and REALLY "support" our troops, yet many average Canadians from all walks of life are giving theirs' so Afghanis can have better lives.
As a Liberal democracy we have good reason to support UN-sanctioned global stability. We have reason - no - the DUTY to defend citizens of the world against outlaws. The Taliban are outlaws. Yes, their characterization by the Americans is extremely flawed. Yes, the American intentions are all wrong. But, we need to realize this action is UN-sanctioned (to some extent), and different than the action taken against Iraq (the illegal invasion of Iraq). This blogger has hated the Taliban since they blew the heads off 500-yr-old Buddha statues (everyone needs a reason). You guessed it - I do support a PEACEKEEPING and national rebuilding effort in Afghanistan (I have some problems with the American withdrawal - as they are mostly responsible for the mess, and should remain to fix it - but, that's a blog for another day). Having said that, I will not hurl politically loaded phrases like "I support our troops". I support them, like all Canadians - without having to say it every 5min on national TV.
We Liberals have to challenge neoCons EVERY TIME they use the troops for their shameless political uses. When a conservative uses the "I support our troops" phrase, we need to immediately reply, "WE ALL support our troops. Stop using them for your partisan political ends. STOP USING THE TROOPS FOR YOUR OWN POLITICAL ENDS!" Respect for our troops starts with respecting their situation, and not simple lip service. Maybe if the sleeping national media hears this phrase enough they'll start thinking about it a little. If we don't get this point across, PM Shrub will succeed in turning us into "Ameri-da", and ensure that the "if you're not with us, you're 'agin us" mentality takes hold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)