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 (4670)	4/22/2005 3:28:55 PM
From: SofaSpud	Respond to of 37812

I was a member of the PC party in the early 80s. I didn’t start out being a Mulroney supporter, but I remember vividly the months between when he won the leadership and the ’84 election. He was so un-Tory – charming, witty, making puns in French. The contrast with Joe Clark was staggering. And with Stanfield, and with Diefenbaker. The idea that the party might suddenly be competitive in Quebec? Wildest dreams time. Which came true on election night. So the party went for charisma, for another lawyer who wanted nothing more than to be Prime Minister. By the definition of success in politics, it was a success. First back to back Tory majorities since Macdonald. And what did they accomplish? Free trade, which Mulroney was against when he ran for the leadership. Otherwise? Oh, there were a couple of executions of civil servants for show, but pretty much they carried on with Trudeau’s government. And the eventual outcome was two seats in 1993. Ralph Klein has ‘charisma’ of a different sort. He has a completely ambiguous political background, was approached by the Liberals before Getty recruited him to the PCs, and doesn’t really seem to believe in much beyond winning elections. Alberta is prosperous today by virtue of good luck, not good management. In terms of lost opportunities, Klein has been a disaster. So it would be fair to say that I’m wary of charisma without substance. And honestly, I very hard pressed to think of anyone in politics in Canada right now who has both. I’ve known Stephen Harper for 20 years. He is quite possibly the smartest person I’ve ever met. I’ve never seen so much as a hint that he’s anything other than completely honest. He did not get into politics because he wanted power – if you want power in Canada, you join the Liberal Party, not the Reform Party. He got involved because he wanted to help change things for the better. He agreed to run for the leadership because otherwise all the work they’d done in the 90s would have been lost, and it would have been many more years before the Canadian political system would be competitive again. He is not like Paul Martin, who decided he was entitled to be Prime Minister and did whatever it took to get there. Obviously the Conservative Party has to market their leader and his policies – that’s what elections are all about. They have to present an attractive and positive alternative. I doubt there’s anything you can do to persuade those who are convinced there’s some hidden agenda to try to impose Texas-style policies. But the Liberal agenda is no longer hidden – and it’s a recipe for disaster. Can you say 68 BQ seats in Quebec? Can you say “au revoir M. Charest, bonjour M. Landry?” Can you say referendum? Sure you can. For those voters with open minds, the comparison between the Liberal and Conservative agendas will be favourable for Harper and the Conservatives. And what the heck, other than Smilin’ Jack, there’s not a lot of charisma competition anyway.

To: marcos who wrote (4670)	4/22/2005 3:51:29 PM
From: 1king	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37812

I am not so sure about "trust" either in a discussion of politicians. Electability is good ... Now we see the REAL problem with waiting for Gomery as Cretien attempts to halt the inquiry. December may never come if certain people have their way ... it will not be in December in any case. We assume that the inquiry will arrive at some, as yet undefined by anyone, "truth" against which Martin and the Liberals can be judged. Even though this is highly unlikely with people sitting on the stand under oath claiming they cannot remember any incriminating details. IMO this is not an innocent until proven guilty situation ... there will be no single "truth" and what do people expect for culpability ... Martin as minister of finance is already indisputably guilty of mismanagement of public money on this and many other issues. Let the liberal kickback issue be solved in court where a conclusion (guilt or innocence) can be established within a clear framework. This has long since been lost in the inquiry, not through the fault of the organization but by the magnitude of the unexpected results. An election costs essentially the same now as in January 2006. So the monetary issue is irrelevant and we should be able to leave the beach for an hour or two to vote. Perhaps with the liberals out of power this inquiry or others, as I am sure the present opposition would probably fire up, will proceed better??? Most importantly, it will allow the non-(liberal/defendant) government of the day to actually govern and get things done on behalf of the people!! The sooner the better??