Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (2380)	4/9/2003 5:35:24 PM
From: SofaSpud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37063

OK, back on topic. Ya, some of Steve’s rhetoric lately has made me think of Arthur Meighen and his “Ready, Aye Ready” line. Part of what you’re hearing is reaction. There is an expectation that people, even politicians, will behave as adults. There is ample room for disagreement with U.S. government policy, under any of their administrations. There’s no reason to be impolite. For what it’s worth, Chretien was of course quite right to refer to freedom of expression [the irony of the muzzle Liberal MPs wear on matters of real import notwithstanding]. That doesn’t mean that voters shouldn’t expect a level of discourse above the adolescent. Francie Ducros and Carolyn Parrish set the context for what followed. While Daliwhal could have been more diplomatic, I don’t think what he said is very different from what lots of guys at the U.S. State Dept. would say. But by that time people were oversensitive. While I don’t doubt for a second that Laurier Lapierre would quietly agree with the sentiment he is alleged to have expressed, I take him at his word that it’s not part of his idiom. Harper was picking up on the visceral reaction among his core constituency about the pokes in the eye, the rudeness, to the Americans [and forgive me for using the term, which I know pushes a button, but it’s easier than typing ‘citizens of the United States’ each time]. And to the slippery way the Liberals have tried to play this issue. It would be one thing to really take a stand on principle, one you could articulate and defend and make to sound consistent. The government hasn’t done that. Instead they’ve handled the situation in an inconceivably amateur manner. Canada has made a more meaningful contribution than most declared members of the “coalition.” The Liberals seem to think that the members of their core constituency, the Barlow nationalists, won’t notice. And they’ve made sure there will be no credit on the other side. You will disagree with this assertion, but Harper and the guys around him are Canadian nationalists. Not of the Barlow strain, which is nothing more that social democratic anti-Americanism. The Alliance is much more akin to, say, Conrad Black’s Canadian nationalism. That we can be better than we are, that it’s a crime that we’re pissing away our advantages, and that it’s unproductive to envy the Americans. Hell, get stupid laws and regulations out of the way, and we’ll take the buggers on and do just fine, thank you. But there’s absolutely no sugar coating the fact that the view you’ve expressed on this thread in many posts, that the U.S. was clearly WRONG to invade Iraq, is not what Harper thinks. He’s making supportive noises in large part because he thinks what they did was right. It’s not a case, for the Alliance, of worrying about an Imperial United States. It’s more a case of saying that the longer Sadaam was allowed to stay, the worse the damage to the U.N. and multi-lateralism, and the increased danger to the west. If that’s a parting of the ways for you and the Alliance, it’s unfortunate. I don’t imagine you will be alone, either. There are LOTS of Canadians who prefer the underdog, and except for the week of September 11th, most of us don’t ever remember thinking of the U.S. as an underdog. {OTOH, there will be some who will be motivated to take a serious look at the party because someone finally had the gumption to express an unpopular notion and stick to it. Fewer, perhaps, than who will walk away, but at least it’s something.} Back to Harper for a second. I don’t think there is anyone who seriously follows politics in Canada who expects that Stephen Harper has a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister, himself included. I can guarantee you that that was not why he got back into politics. One of the few things that most of us agree on is the need for a credible opposition. If he didn’t run, it wasn’t going to happen in this parliamentary session. It’s still not good enough, obviously, because there is a clear consensus that Paul Martin will win, and big, in 2004. But it’s still better than it would have been, and if any credit accrues to that, it belongs to Steve.

To: marcos who wrote (2380)	4/9/2003 11:54:09 PM
From: Ally	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37063

Marcos.. not having too involved in politics, first time I come to know of Harper is to hear all the sucking up noises he makes on Canada's neutrality to the war. Is he thinking he'll win points with the voters by representing Canadians as the 52nd state? Don't know anything about Harper... just hoping he's not a bible thumping fellow like his predecessor. Lost faith in religion. The more religious they are, the more they make war.