|
Post by Dr. Drum on Dec 15, 2005 7:42:40 GMT -5
See Drum, that's where we differ. I put the repsonsiblitiy for the relationship on both countries equally. Chrisfan, you’ll note that my post wasn’t about responsibility, but actually I don't disagree with you on that at all. I was just outlining a factor that I believe is a major undercurrent in Canada-U.S. relations. The whole world is as Rocky puts it, treading water with the U.S. to some degree these days, waiting to see whether post-Bush, it returns to the kind of mulitlateralism that it was instrumental in creating after World War II. In that sense, everyone is at a fork in the road with the U.S. An issue like the softwood lumber dispute, for example. We've had several legally binding rulings from both the NAFTA dispute resolution panel and the WTO that U.S. countervailing duties against Canadian softwood lumber are in violation of bi-national and international trade rules. So far, the U.S. has not respected these rulings. In Canadian eyes this undermines what was a key rationale for NAFTA – that we would have an agreed upon, legally binding means of settling trade disputes with everyone playing by the same rules. You know, you can overstate your case on this stuff. I said yesterday that I thought Martin showed poor judgment in saying what he did, but he did not describe the U.S. as an enemy. This was the remark, made at the UN climate change talks in Montreal, that raised the ire of the White House: "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say this: There is such a thing as a global conscience." A couple days later, again at the climate talks, Martin appeared at a press conference with Bill Clinton. (Clinton was quoted that day as saying George Bush is "flat wrong" that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would damage the U.S. economy.) All any of this amounts to is transparent electioneering, from a man who spent the better part of two decades trying to become Canada’s prime minister and is now watching it all unravel for reasons only partially of his own making.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Dec 15, 2005 7:46:02 GMT -5
You had to know Stephen’s old skeletons were going to be putting in an appearance again before this one was over. Vancouver — An eight-year-old speech by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper in which he calls Canada a welfare state and says the unemployed are happy to be living off their benefits is being circulated by his critics. tinyurl.com/9hvrptinyurl.com/7lvnr
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on Dec 15, 2005 8:55:18 GMT -5
Amen to that Drum, it wouldn’t happen.
Chris your ambassador couldn’t have put it any more bluntly. Like it or not his barely between the lines amounts to school yard bullying. “be nice to us or we won’t be friends” You know for years half your country men have had us all living in fucking igloos but dare anyone say anything remotely “bad” about the US and oh boy the frigging world is ending. Spare us will ya.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Dec 15, 2005 9:36:14 GMT -5
Chris your ambassador couldn’t have put it any more bluntly. Like it or not his barely between the lines amounts to school yard bullying. “be nice to us or we won’t be friends” Can you direct me to a country whose foreign policy does not boil down to EXACTLY the same thing? Honestly, what is Martin arguing? That if the US isn't nice to Canada that we won't be friends. I'm not arguing that the attitude doesn't exsist Rockkid. I'm just questioning why the US is not allowed to take such a stance, but it's justified for other countries to take such a stand. As Drum said, nations around the world are watching the US right now to determine whether or not our policy is a Bush thing, or a long lasting thing. What will happen if it's a long lasting thing? "Be nice to us, or we won't be friends".
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on Dec 16, 2005 8:45:39 GMT -5
Actually I believe he was slamming an environmental stance. But unless I missed ½ his speech he never came right out with the not even thinly veiled threats (unlike the ambassador).
Perhaps it’s the timing that’s bad chris. But while I fully admit only a small percentage of Americans are blatantly ignorant about other countries sadly for all of us they seem to get the most coverage & be the most vocal. It just makes you look so damn insular lately. Not a flattering light. You raise a good point, Bush or permanent? I think IMO history shows it existed long before Bush. Still leaves a sour taste.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Dec 22, 2005 10:55:04 GMT -5
Found this quite an interesting piece, not just for its critique of modern media cycle politics, but because I’ve been wondering a bit about Schreyer’s return to politics. This perhaps illustrates the value of keeping some of these old gaffers around, though, regardless of whether you agree with everything they have to say.
The Schreyer exception: a candidate with content
Christie Blatchford The Globe and Mail Thursday, December 22, 2005
It is almost as if what might be called A Magical Evening with Ed Schreyer never happened.
The nomination meeting of the Selkirk-Interlake New Democratic Party riding association at which Mr. Schreyer was acclaimed was held on Tuesday evening — too late, by the all-important Eastern Canadian clock to which the national press resolutely marches, to catch even the 11 p.m. newscasts, too old by early yesterday morning to matter.
Besides, the evening was too nuanced, too intelligent and ultimately too complex to be packaged in the shiny parcels disgorged by the modern media machine.
As one of my young colleagues remarked with wry self-deprecation after Mr. Schreyer's astonishing acceptance speech, which was part Canadian history class and part lesson in the art of measured and thoughtful politics, "We're not used to that any more — content."
Mr. Schreyer doesn't give a fig for television, in any case.
After his speech, in the requisite scrum, he defiantly met the eyes of his questioners, despite the shouts of "Look at the cameras, Mr. Schreyer! Look at the cameras!"
He'd talked on too long anyway. I suspect he couldn't help it.
The former Manitoba premier, federal MP and governor-general has been out of the political game for 20-plus years, and as his still-gorgeous red-haired wife, Lily, remarked when asked if she really was glad to see her husband back on the hustings: "Oh yes! He has so much to say."
The Jack Layton national tour was never slated to stay on to hear Mr. Schreyer's speech.
Rather, we were to blow in before it, BlackBerrys and mobiles growling in vibrate mode (this is what passes for good manners now), engage in the symbiotic party trick that sees Mr. Layton get a photo op and the press video clips, and then get the hell out of Dodge.
The media insisted on remaining (never imagining it would last more than a few minutes) at the Selkirk Recreation Centre, with its plastic poinsettias and garlands of greenery, but only so reporters could nail him on the burning same-sex question and preferably stir up a brouhaha.
Mr. Schreyer once said, way back in 1987, that homosexuality was “an affliction” and that while gays should be protected from abuses, they probably didn't need the protection of human rights legislation.
Naturally, it has been dredged up as if a fresh and fatal remark that should hang him.
But the predicted few minutes turned into an elongated exercise in collegial, small-town politicking.
First, the riding president had to make the formal call for nominations three times, although the only other fellow who'd planned to stand, Colin Wayne James, had already agreed to withdraw once Mr. Schreyer announced he wanted to give it a go.
The hat — actually, battered old ballot boxes — had to be passed around to raise money for Mr. Schreyer's campaign (Conservative MP James Bezan won handily last time and apparently spent more than anyone else in the province). The 200 or so good folks from this largely rural riding near Winnipeg who were in attendance had to be coaxed to dig into their purses and wallets, so that took a while.
Then the man who put Mr. Schreyer's name forward had his five minutes, and then Mr. James, who graciously seconded Mr. Schreyer's nomination, had his.
Mr. James' was a fascinating speech all on its own, a sort of plaintive cri de coeur delivered by this man with a ponytail and big snow boots for something more than the artifice of the modern campaign.
"It's so driven by the media," he said. The televised debates, he said, weren't even debates, but rather "auditioning . . . We're not talking about the issues." One of the reasons he decided to step aside, Mr. James said, was that it was the substantive Mr. Schreyer who had come forward.
Then Mr. Schreyer, who turned 70 yesterday, bounded onto the podium, leaned forward into the microphone and assumed the position he would maintain for the next hour-plus — standing on his tippytoes, literally bouncing on the balls of his feet, he was so excited.
"You might ask," Mr. Schreyer said, "and you have every right to ask: 'What are you doing up here at the age of 70?' I did ask myself that question for a few days, Lily even longer.” He chortled. However, he said, the other day, "She began to talk to me again," and with that, Mrs. Schreyer, not for the last time, grinned and rolled her eyes to the ceiling, fluorescent lights, acoustic tiles and all.
Then began a speech that meandered through the landscape of Canadian federal politics for the past half-century.
What may best capture the balanced, informed tone of Mr. Schreyer's remarks is what he had to say about Americans.
His affection and admiration for the people and the country was evident, but so was his desire for Canada to keep its own proud voice and to use it smartly. "I'm very unhappy — sad, really — at all the little shots" recently being directed at U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, who, Mr. Schreyer reminded his audience, said only that "it's not necessary to tear down the United States to build up your own country."
That, Mr. Schreyer said, was perfectly true, and the sort of thing "your uncle Frank might say," yet folks were going on about it like hysterics.
The problem with the Liberals, he said, "is that where they should be bold and courageous [as with softwood lumber and mad cow disease], they shrink away," and this next seemed an oblique allusion to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, "but when somebody's already down, they put the boots to them."
This, remarkably, led him to discuss Conrad Black and his fall upon "unenviable times." While Mr. Schreyer later made clear his general disdain for those executives who are overpaid or allegedly caught thieving, and for the compliant boards that let them run roughshod, he displayed not a trace of glee over Mr. Black's predicament, even saying, at one point, that he is “being used as a showcase patsy” by U.S. prosecutors.
He brought with him books (Speaking for Myself by Manitoba's former Tory premier Duff Roblin, every word of which Mr. Schreyer said he agrees with; The Economics of Innocent Fraud by his friend John Kenneth Galbraith; The Big Red Machine, or How the Liberal Party Dominates Canadian Politics by the "fair-minded" Stephen Clarkson), and read excerpts from them.
He brought two 40-year-old pages from Hansard, when Parliament "passed the original Canadian Medicare Act — and I was there."
He wore three small pins on his lapel: his Order of Canada; the one commemorating the 1961 formation of the NDP; and his 10-year Farmers Union pin.
He used words like "spirited," "whilst," "solicitude" and “probity” and said, of rising natural gas prices, "That's not the fault of the Americans, or the Sheiks of Araby, but the gutless Canadian federal government!"
The homespun folks of Selkirk-Interlake listened raptly. The room was as quiet as a house the night before Christmas, but for the occasional stifled yawn from the press corps.
Afterwards, as Mr. Schreyer was about to be dragged to the obligatory scrum, the plan was set. "I'll start off," one reporter said, "by asking why he's running again," and the next question would be the same-sex one. "But what if he goes on and on?" someone worried.
The big question was asked. “I won't answer that and I don't apologize for it,” Mr. Schreyer snapped.
"Parliament has dealt with it and I'm not one of those asking that it be reopened."
For more than an hour, he had talked, on subjects that ranged from the struggling rural towns of the Prairies to adscam and Canada-U.S. relations and much in between.
All anyone wanted to ask him about was an 18-year-old remark, and when he wouldn't get into it again and either embarrass himself or his party, the evening was consigned to the dustbin of the campaign.
About 18 hours later, Mr. Layton was driving a dogsled team here in Yellowknife, and the cameras were going wild.
Now, that's a photo op. And that, alas and alack, is politics, 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jan 2, 2006 10:09:13 GMT -5
Alright, Christmas is over - time to head out on the campaign trail again. When's the last time we saw this word used in reference to a politician? A salute to Mr. Decent
|
|
andrew
Streetcorner Musician
Posts: 58
|
Post by andrew on Jan 2, 2006 11:47:27 GMT -5
I guess this board isn't regularly used, but I'd like to thank Dr. Drum for his reply #45 post.
IMO we (Canada) are at a very tense time with the US government. Issues such as the Softwood Lumber dispute are becoming increasingly frustrating as the more we approach the US, the more they tell us to back off. They make us seem impatient and aggressive, and we make them seem ignorant and passive. The supposed $5 Billion tariffs and taxes owed to us is a huge deal, and the American government are treating this as no big deal, which, in a lot of cases, is done to quiet down a possible media frenzy. It's a strategic method used by people all the time - delay the situation as much and as long as possible by ignoring the situation. And like Drum referenced, NAFTA is being abused when the US is not playing by the same rules as the rest of us. In fact, NAFTA has been biting Canada (amongst other countries) in the ass ever since its inception, and I'm sure the US government knows this well.
With the less democratic and more warmongering Republicans showing less compassion to their surrounding countries, many Canadians such as myself are fearing our government fraternizing with Bush et al. I know very well how much a superpower like the US can influence foreign leaders into following their lead and the mess that comes with it. And as much as our previous PM Chretien was hard on the US, he unified us more as an independent country rather than a dependent one. So with this next federal election, a lot of people are looking for politicians who will stand up for Canada, which in a certain way means standing up to the US government.
I know that is an important issue to me, and it is sad because I like the US in a lot of ways. I just can't stand the Bush administration.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jan 7, 2006 11:49:22 GMT -5
Hey Andrew, good to see you around. Yeah, this board isn't used a whole lot but I figured I'd step up the pace a little – now that nominations have closed and the media has 'officially' bestowed momentum on the Conservative campaign and all. Going to go out on a limb and attempt to pick the winner in each electoral district across the country. I'm running this one from east to west, starting with my native province, Newfoundland. I'll probably get a lot less wordy (and quite likely more and more laughably inaccurate) as we head west. A fearless attempt to predict the outcome of the general election in all 308 ridings in Canada. Predicted winners are highlighted in red Newfoundland and Labrador Avalon Conservative – Fabian Manning Green – Shannon Hillier Liberal – Bill Morrow NDP – Eugene Conway Formerly the riding of retiring Natural Resources minister John Efford and typically bedrock Liberal. The Grits have put up a relatively weak candidate this time, however, in contrast to the colourful Manning, who is a maverick even within his own party. These characteristics should play well in the land of Joe Smallwood and John Crosbie. May be close but I'm expecting a Conservative gain here. Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor Conservative – Aaron Hynes Green – Judy Davis Liberal – Scott Simms NDP – Sandra Cooze Incumbent Scott Simms is a former TV weatherman. The area is historically friendly territory for the provinicial PCs and I've seen some indications that the Conservative candidate may do well but I'm not expecting any surprises here. A Liberal hold. Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte Conservative – Cyril Pelley Green – Martin Hanzalek Liberal – Gerry Byrne NDP – Holly Pike Federally this area has elected Liberal, PC and NDP MPs. Recently it's been solidly Liberal with Byrne winning over 60% of the vote in the last election. He looks set for another decisive win this time. No problems for the Liberals here. Labrador Conservative – Joe Goudie Green – Gail Zwicker Liberal – Todd Russell NDP – Jake Larkin Another solidly Liberal riding – Russell won 51% of the vote in the by-election in May 2005. As safe Liberal seat as there is anywhere in the country. Random-Burin-St. George's Conservative – Cynthia Downey Green – Mark Brennan Liberal – Bill Matthews NDP – Amanda Will Bill Matthews has won this seat as both a Progressive Consevative in 1997 and as a Liberal in 2000 and 2004. He's been no more than a backbench seat-warmer since he crossed the floor to the Liberals in 1999 and is not always well liked at this point but unlike 2004 he's not facing a serious challenge this time. Another one which will end up comfortably in the Liberal column. St. John's East Conservative - Norm Doyle Green – Stephen Harris Liberal – Paul Antle NDP – Mike Kehoe Incumbent MP Norm Doyle is popular in the riding but took some flak for the Conservative Party's attempt to bring down the government over the budget bill last spring. (The Liberals tied the Atlantic Accord, which gave Newfoundland control over its offshore revenues, to the budget bill. Had the Conservatives won the no-confidence vote, they would have killed both.) Newfoundlanders can have long memories politically but I'd be surprised to see Doyle taken down. The Liberal candidate will finish a respectable second but this should be a safe Conservative seat. St. John's South-Mount Pearl Conservative – Loyola Hearn Green – Barry Crozier Liberal – Siobhan Coady NDP – Peg Norman This riding used to elect PCs almost reflexively with the Liberals respectable second place finishers. Incumbent Hearn is a reasonably popular MP but again with the same Atlantic Accord baggage this time out as Norm Doyle. The candidate match-up among the three main parties is the same as 2004, when Hearn won with about 40% of the vote. A Liberal win is not out of the question if there is NDP stategic voting (the party got about 24% of the vote in 2004) but this should be a safe Conservative seat. Provincial breakdownLiberals - 4 Conservatives - 3
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 8, 2006 10:05:32 GMT -5
Tory firebrand Elsie Wayne back on national stage to fight same-sex marriage
CHRIS MORRIS
FREDERICTON (CP) - Former Conservative MP Elsie Wayne, who once advised Canadian gays and lesbians to "shut up" about their lifestyle, has marched back into the political arena under the banner of Christian outrage.
Wayne, 73, has been recruited by Vote Marriage Canada, a lobby group that is waging a national campaign to revisit the same-sex marriage issue in a bid to restore the traditional definition of marriage.
Wayne, the MP for Saint John, N.B., from 1993 until her retirement in 2004, has been named Atlantic chairwoman of the group, and she is promising to re-ignite the gay rights debate with her blunt views about homosexuals and their place in Canadian society.
"Why would anyone do this to Canada?" she says of the decision to allow same-sex marriage in this country.
"Look at the future for our young people, for heaven's sake. What kind of message are we sending to them? It's no wonder (U.S. President) George Bush doesn't want to do business with Canada anymore. I don't blame him. At least he has moral standards."
After a lengthy and divisive debate, MPs voted last June to alter the traditional definition of marriage and allow same-sex couples to wed.
At least 3,000 same-sex couples have married since the legislation was passed.
But Wayne and other members of Vote Marriage Canada insist the issue remains a sore point with many Canadians. The group is urging people to vote for candidates who support a free vote in the Commons, whatever their political stripe.
Gay and lesbian activists say Wayne's return to the national stage could be bad news for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, the only federal leader calling for a free vote on the issue.
"While this may appeal to Mr. Harper's base of support, he is trying to look more moderate and mainstream," says Laurie Arron, director of advocacy for Egale Canada, a national organization fighting for gay rights.
"Canadians do not want to reopen the issue. This is actually a negative for Mr. Harper."
Arron says it's too late to turn back the clock.
"The only reason to symbolically exclude same-sex couples from marriage is to say that we're morally inferior to opposite-sex couples," he says.
"That's not equality. That's not first-class citizenship. That's second-class citizenship."
Pat O'Brien, founder of Vote Marriage Canada, says the same-sex marriage controversy is quietly simmering on the back burners of the current federal election campaign.
"It is an issue," says O'Brien, a former Liberal MP who quit the party to sit as an independent because of his opposition to the Liberal legislation.
"The polls show that people want the issue revisited in a free vote in Parliament."
A recent poll by Leger Marketing-Sun Media of 2,013 Canadians found that 55 per cent wanted the same-sex issue to be decided by parliamentarians.
Wayne says she is convinced a national referendum on the marriage question would produce overwhelming support for the traditional definition.
"We have a lot of people in this country who are for marriage being between a man and woman and nothing else," she says.
"The fact of the matter is that Paul Martin just listened to a few loudmouths on this issue. He hasn't listened to Canadians."
Wayne's controversial views on homosexuality often landed her in hot water when she was an MP and deputy leader of the Conservative Party.
She says Canadian society is founded on Christian values and there is no place in that value system for people who have made what she considers a lifestyle choice to live as gays and lesbians.
"If you want to live that lifestyle, go live it. But don't ask us to change marriage. Just shut up about it," she says, repeating comments she once made in the House of Commons.
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 8, 2006 10:15:07 GMT -5
Woah ! 7 down ... Only 301 to go ... ! !
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jan 9, 2006 19:32:16 GMT -5
Is anyone nervous? Thought I heard they're polling at 7-9 points ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jan 9, 2006 19:57:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm nervous the NDP's gonna get caught up in the traditional Liberal-Conservative squeeze play.
Aside from that, I believe we were in roughly the same place two weeks before the last election. To me, I hear these numbers and I don't know - they just feel a little divorced from the general tone of politics in this country. Seems to me that most people have made up their minds about both Martin and Harper at this point and I don't hear a lot who are eager to put the latter in there.
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jan 9, 2006 20:11:36 GMT -5
I'm voting NDP, I'm just a bit concerned with some of the momentum Harper seems to be picking up.
Btw Doc , what do you know about Peter Stoffer? He's our candidate where we live now. Seems like a pretty sharp and decent cat.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jan 10, 2006 7:58:24 GMT -5
Peter’s a real constituency man, Riley. Won the seat by only 39 votes in 1997, but he’s worked hard for the riding since and never taken anything for granted. People seem to have responded to that, since won by about 6000 votes in 2004.
Within the NDP he’s a bit more on the centrist end of the spectrum, especially in economic terms, so he’s butted heads occasionally. At the same time he’s got a background in the labour movement and as an environmental activist. I respect him – principled, commonsensical kind of guy.
|
|