Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Apparently Canada is only "A great country…"

I can only imagine the response Mr. Harper’s wife gets when she says “I love you” … it probably goes something like this “Ummm… ya… your great too!”

When a Canadian (or anyone else for that matter) is faced with the question “Do you love Canada?” is there really any reason to say anything other then “I LOVE CANADA” or “YES”?

… according to Mr. Harper there is.

When faced with the question "Do you love Canada" Harper responded with “Canada is a great country...”

Here is a question for the average voter… if Mr. Harper can’t answer the easy questions… how can he become Prime Minister and deal with the hard questions and issues?

Anyways… that’s my ‘Harper Gaff of the Week' tune in next week for a new one.

fresh

1 Comments:

At 10:59 PM , Blogger EX-NDIP said...

I found some interesting comments on a leader . . . . maybe you'll recognize him . . .

Sheila Copps
Sun, December 18, 2005

Paul Martin vs. the old Paul Martin
HOW THE LIBERAL LEADER'S VIEWS 'EVOLVED' SINCE A PREVIOUS DEBATE

By SHEILA COPPS

MONTREAL -- Watching the federal leaders' debates this week left me with a strange sense of deja vu. It seems such a long time ago that John Manley and I squared off against Paul Martin in the Liberal leadership debate -- also in Vancouver.

It is hard to believe those debates were only 2 1/2 years ago. Since then, I have crossed over to the "dark side" (that's how politicians and journalists refer to each other), Manley has left public life and Martin is the leader of a divided party with internal hemorrhaging that continues to this day.

I felt it important to provide you with this backdrop so you might be in a better position to analyze the veracity of the messages that arose from the latest debates.

Normally in a debate, a key moment crystallizes the campaign; a fiery exchange helps viewers understand the differences in policies proposed by the candidates.

The new rules for last week's debates -- which were similar to those used in the Liberal leadership -- rendered such a moment impossible. There was little chance of a "breakout moment" where the public could get a glimpse of the real truth behind the carefully scripted statements and rebuttals.

Even the timing of the English debate -- on Friday night just before Christmas -- pretty much guaranteed that the majority of Canadians, rushing to get ready for the holiday season, wouldn't even see it.

A format which permits little interaction, in which leaders are admonished about debating each other and where microphones are conveniently cut off before challenges take place, leaves viewers hungering for a deeper understanding of the differences in views. Inconsistencies about past positions are left unchallenged and generally the leaders repeat their partisan view of the facts. We witness a kind of political infomercial in which each leader, unchallenged, tries to hammer away at the issues that will get him votes.

In French and English, the Prime Minister repeatedly tried to score points against the U.S., in a bid to move the debate onto ground that he knows is a fertile Liberal vote-getter.

Two and a half years ago, the same prime minister stood on another stage in Vancouver and took the exact opposite position! In fact, so critical was he of the era of Chretien-Bush relations that he endorsed the "perimeter North America" concept proposed by the Business Council on National Issues, which would essentially keep a common fence around, not between, Canada and the U.S. I also recall him working behind the scenes to undermine then-PM Jean Chretien's decision not to send troops to Iraq.

During that same Liberal debate, he also refused to support gay marriage and remained ambiguous about whether he would even sign the Kyoto accord.

Now, he obviously has changed his mind. In last week's debates, he emerged as pro-Kyoto, anti-Iraq-war and a booster of the Charter equality provisions which guarantee non-discrimination in civil marriage. A cynic might wonder what happened between Vancouver 2003 and Vancouver 2005.

If Martin's views have evolved, then we should give him credit for approaching issues with an open mind. (He did, of course, support gay marriage in a House of Commons vote.)

As well, in a party leadership debate, the target audience is different from that of an election debate.

But if Paul Martin is to be forgiven for changing his mind on three major issues in the space of less than three years, why do Liberals think can they score political points by dredging up Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's statements of eight years ago?

And why do certain media outlets think it is relevant to cover Harper's eight-year-old flip-flops but blank out when it comes to Martin's about-face on Kyoto, Iraq and gay marriage? Double standard, anyone?


But of course we know tired, old Paul LOVES CANADA, so much that he keeps his money in Bermuda, and has a foreign FLAG on his family business.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home