BS: Canucks... Trudeau?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 07:53 AM

An interesting perspective:

Trudeau underestimated?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:04 AM

Another perspective, bring national unity into the dilema:


Unity-Hill Times

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 08:17 AM

"An interesting perspective:

Trudeau underestimated?"


Indeed. Good one, Ed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 12 - 01:07 PM

Good article, Ed. Very interesting. Perhaps the Liberals can recover again and sieze the middle ground which is their natural place of strength.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:35 PM

Alot can happen over a few months and years. But, a few months ago who would have thought Justin Trudeau would have had this poll headline in the news? Not me.


Who woulda thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 04:51 PM

It couldn't make things worse. However, I think there has to be a combination of NDP and Liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 07:57 PM

I am SO glad I clicked on the link, Ed, because I found
this link at that link.

Kinda resembles a politician, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Nov 12 - 08:53 PM

Kinda looks like what a NDP_Liberal merger would look like:)

I prefer mine in the traditional colours, and would see one of these types as a partial turncoat (in more than just a colour).

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 03:28 PM

That's pretty strange.

I think it would be a very good idea for the NDP and the Liberals to merge into one party, but I doubt they'll do it. They'd both fear to lose their own identity in the process...but most of all, the NDP would fear it...and probably with some justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 04:39 PM

Indeed, LH. The hard core NDP philosophies are unacceptable to many Canucks. Now, their stance today on, say, the military, might be quite different from years ago, but Canucks of yore still remember why they didn't "sign up". Now... try to find all that kinda stuff. Go to their website. It ain't there. Easy to find it on the web and research it? Somewhat, but not really entertaining enough for young BUSY Canucks. Anybody under about 40 years old gonna do it? No.

BTW, I pick their stance on the military years ago because my forefathers lived through wars and thought that anyone who would severely downgrade the military was not acceptable as a party. Debatable? Of course. Acceptable to my parents? Not a hope.

Now, I ain't gonna get into any debate or provide detailed support or anything else... I am just sayin that's the way I remember things.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Nov 12 - 07:21 PM

My historical recollection is the NDP began in 1961.
Curious gnu, the MDP did not sign up for what since then?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 07:50 AM

People didn't "sign up" with the NDP because of some of their policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 08:13 AM

Gnu is on to something important here. From the late 60s -- Vietnam, remember? -- right up to the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the NDP were solidly opposed to Canada's continued membership in NATO and everything that went with it, but most particularly our military cooperation with the United States. When the US wanted to test its new Cruise missiles in northern Canada, we were treated to frantic demonstrations and much demagoguery frequently starring NDP activists. The NDP position on the Canadian Forces at that time was all for "peacekeeping" (whatever that meant) and complete withdrawal from anything resembling war-fighting.

The CF response to that was confused disdain. How could we be effective peacekeepers without war-fighting capacity?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 10:34 AM

I don't see, from historical logic, that the NDP should alone be singled out as being opposed" the military or USA realted items mentioned. It may have been more a reflection of the countries mood at that time in history, which leaned more towards peace efforts rather than USA led "military war preparation in the cold war atmosphere." It cant be forgotten that Pearson won the Noble prize for peace efforts and many Canadians in the 60's were very proud of the countries reputation in that area. Citizens mood toward the Vietnam War should also be considered.

Diefenbaker and Trudeau were hardly big supporters of USA military policies of the period, or putting Canada in the forefront of a USA nuclear missle defense system.

Dief (57-63) was against accepting Bomarc nuclear missiles from the United States. He cancelled the Avro Arrow project. He had very poor relations with the Kennedy administration. He also refused USA pressure to join the Organization of American States, which at that time, would comit Canada to military action in the event of aggression of any of the member states.

""Prime Minister Pearson (1963 1968 and leader of the Opposition 1958-1963) infuriated Johnson by criticizing US bombing policy in Vietnam in a speech in the USA. For a Canadian prime minister to criticize US actions on American soil violated every code of diplomacy, but Pearson the Nobel Peace Prize winner felt a moral obligation to state his views. The event effectively ended Canadian influence on American Vietnam policy. ""

Prime Minister Trudeau (1968, to 1979, and 1980 to 1984) did little to build up the military and maintained a good relationship with Russia and Cuba. He was not seen as a big supporter of many USA international military approaches.

Trudeau established Canadian diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, when the USA viewed them as a military threat. He had official visits to both countries. Trudeau questioned Canada's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and cut Canada's NATO force in Europe in half.During a visit to the Soviet Union in 1971, he said that "the overwhelming American presence posed "a danger to our national identity from a cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view." (hardly a pro USA statement or move. When visiting Canada in 1972, President Nixon declared that ""the special relationship between Canada and the United States was dead"".

""At a press conference in 1983, Trudeau denounced American policy in Central and South America. He indicated that Canada was appalled by human rights abuses in client states of the United States such as Chile, El Salvador and Guatemala, and did not share the American antipathy for the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Canada openly condemned the United States at the United Nations for its attack on the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada, whose Marxist government had been friendly to Cuba"".

""With his own retirement looming, Trudeau sought to use his remaining time in office to work toward a lessening of international tension. In October 1983, he launched a peace initiative, proposing a comprehensive nuclear test ban and a ban on testing high-altitude weapons, a five-power conference on nuclear arms control and the implementation of a consultative process between NATO and the Soviet bloc. Trudeau personally brought his plan to Western capitals as well as to Moscow and Beijing. "" While this met with little success, and angeres the USA (as he did not consult with them first), many of the suggestions bore later fruit.

Historically,the NDP surely has had an influence on Canada's policies (far beyond its political support) because it often held a balance of powere between the liberals and PCs. The party MPs often asked pointed questions on Canada's military position on international conflicts and defense agencies and initiatives. But, does that make them anti military?

Before the Afghanistan mission, NDP leader Alexa McDonough(then NDP leader) indicated she was ""opposed the US-led assault on Afghanistan, saying that the fight against terrorism should be waged under the the United Nations...not under NATO"". She indicated that this should not be seen as the NDP being anti-military, that the party supported Canada's military and as such felt more international endorsement was needed before sending them into a major conflict overseas. It is interesting that opinion polls at the time showed opposition to military action against Afghanistan was greater in Quebec than any other province. A good question is could that have contributed in some way to the more recent NDP election wins in Quebec? Beats me?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 11:46 AM

I'm going to be very blunt here, and I hope I don't completely derail the conversation.

Lester Pearson won the Nobel Prize for coming up with a neat way for the super powers of 1956 to back away from the Suez crisis without losing face. The principle of his proposal was that the intervening forces would not come from Britain, the Soviet Union or the United states, but all had cultural and political ties to at least one of those powers. Consequently, everyone knew that if either the Egyptians or the Israels touched a hair of any head that wore the UN blue beret (the teeny weeny, baby blue don't-shoot-me beanie), the super powers would drop the gloves and start World War Three.

Every single successful peace mission was based on this principle, and when the end of the Cold War brought an end to Mutually Assured Destruction, "classic" peacekeeping died with it. I'm talking about Bosnia and Croatia here, of course.

Canadians are very fond of the touching belief that we had a central role in the success of UN peacekeeping. A closer look reveals that, Mr Pearson aside, for the most part we provided soldiers skilled enough and un-American enough to conduct each peace mission within its rules of engagement --for what that's worth.

Sixty years on from our first deployments to the UN Truce Supervision Organization, the Middle East is no closer to peace than it was in 1947, Cyprus has grown accustomed to a constant military force that is a relable source of foreign exchange, India and Pakistan still can't agree on who owns Kashmir, and the Congo region is hell on earth. These are the places with the longest UN engagement, incidentally, and Canada has participated in all these missions from their earliest days.

What Trudeau added to the mix was a core belief that Canada's highest priority should be home defence, which did not sit well with the large sector of the public for whom our expeditionary operations were the greatest source of pride. NATO was where it was at, not tramping over the tundra. We needed a big-ship, blue-water Navy, an air force fully kitted out with the latest in fighter jets, and an army trained and equipped for that mythical confrontation in central Germany --the one that required main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, mechanized infantry. The one that never happened.

What we got in expeditionary operations was insurgency, which regular armies are notoriously bad at -- but that's a topic for another day.

For the record, Pierre Trudeau was right; in the late 60s, the Canadian Forces were tightly tied into international alliances at the expense of domestic needs. Unfortunately, he was arrogant about it at a time when public perceptions of Canadian national identity had not quite caught up with him.

And even after 11 years of Afghanistan and tub-thumping for support to the troops, many Canadians remain woefully ignorant, not only of our real military history -- not the fantasy whipped up for the 1812 bi-centennial -- but also of our present-day capabilities and commitments.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 04:37 PM

Peacekeepers need to know how to fight. The only way to know how to fight--that is, know what's involved in a fight--is to have fought. Training sharpens the blade but experience hones it.

Generally, Canadians built a reputation in WW I and as much in WW II. Korea didn't hurt, either. The resolution of the Suez Crisis by our then Prime Minister indeed brought a certain prestige to our country, but with Trudeau we had a PM who wasn't about to kiss Washington's rear end. Canada was involved in the Gulf War, but wisely stayed away from the Iraq War, once again incurring the wrath of our neighbours to the south. Our read of the proxy battles in Central America kept us out of there, and we had the indecency to see that those 'wars' had CIA written all over them. The former Yugoslavia was a dog's breakfast, but MacKenzie's leadership was excellent. I think we caved in a bit to do with Afghanistan--sent a few thousand troops from the PPCLI so that the idiot Bush could get some troops into Iraq, pdq. That said, the soldiers acquitted themselves well and continue to do so. HOWEVER, it has come to pass that our military people--those we send to support/enforce national policy--have been betrayed by various governments that have in OUR names underfunded them, egregiously. Lieutenant-General Roméo Antonius Dallaire along with the earlier Major-General Lewis Wharton MacKenzie were stalwart examples of what is best in military leadership, and the men and women who served under them would without hesitation attest to that, imo.

Political parties themselves change. It is a changed NDP to which I referred many posts ago. I detest the Conservatives and really dislike the Liberals. No party will be accepted by all people. That's a given. But the way it stands, unless the NDP and Liberals do reach some sort of accommodation, as a country we will be ruined. The Conservatives HAVE to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 04:44 PM

That's exactly how I see it, 999.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:39 PM

I agree with both of you. Now what do we do?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:41 PM

Goot qvestion!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 06:52 PM

Now? We simply say that all of these posts are meritous and show great insight. If ony ALL Canucks had such a grasp of our history we wouldn't allow our government to sell such an amazing nation to the highest bidder but that is what is happening. Money. Greed. It's sickening.

One comment... "But, does that make them [NDP] anti military?" They were clearly so "back then" and that's a BIG reason why they were ignored by the voters "back in the day". My comment, thanks for the support, refers to "back in the day" as I said it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 09:40 PM

Charmion, you ask a fundamental and important question. I intend to respond with a few thoughts, but not until tomorrow. I'd like to formulate something thoughtful, because this is too important for off the cuff or glib.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 12 - 10:07 PM

This thread has taken a turn for the better.

Some fascinating posts!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 07:09 AM

Better that than a term for the wurst.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 08:28 AM

NDP

Principles and policies

The NDP evolved from a merger of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF grew from populist, agrarian and socialist roots into a modern socialist party. Although the CCF was part of the Christian left and the Social Gospel movement,[12] the NDP is secular and pluralistic. It has broadened to include concerns of the New Left, and advocates issues such as gay rights, international peace, and environmental stewardship.

New Democrats today advocate, among other things:

        Gender equality and equal rights for LGBT citizens
        Improving environmental protection through government regulations
        National water safety standards
        Reducing poverty in Canada[13]
        Aggressive human rights protection
        Expanding funding for public transportation
        Expanding public health care, including dental and prescription drug coverage
        Social assistance policies that reflects citizens' needs and assist their re-entry to the work force
        Abolishing the unelected Senate of Canada and ensuring more proportional representation[14]
        Workers' rights including raising the minimum wage to pace the cost of living
        Aboriginal peoples' treaty, land, and constitutional rights
        A foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action
        Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
        One wing is focused on ending the Canadian War on Drugs and legalizing recreational drugs[15]
        Lowering taxes for small businesses[16]

#######################################

Liberal Party

Principles and policies

The principles of the party are based on Liberalism as defined by various liberal theorists and include individual freedom for present and future generations, responsibility, human dignity, a just society, political freedom, religious freedom, national unity, equality of opportunity, cultural diversity, bilingualism, and multilateralism.[9][10] In the present times, the Liberal party has favoured a variety of policies from both right and left of the political spectrum. When it formed the government from 1993 to 2006, it was a strong champion of balanced budgets, and eliminated the budget deficit completely from the federal budget in 1995 by reducing spending on social programs or delegating them to the provinces, and promised to replace the Goods and Services Tax in the party's famous Red Book.[11] It also legalized same-sex marriage and the use of cannabis for medical purposes, and had proposed complete decriminalization of possession of small amounts of it.

[edit]Current policies

During the 2011 election the Liberal party's policies included:[12]

        Introduction of a family care plan for Canadians supporting ill family members
        Pension plan reform
        Additional investment in higher education via direct financial aid (learning passport)
        Spending restraint (less on consultants and advertising)
        Reduce deficit to 2 per cent of GDP by 2013 (currently at 5 per cent)
        Cancel corporate tax deduction and return rates to 18 per cent (currently at 16.5 per cent)
        Restoration of the long-form census
        Quadruple renewable energy production, including wind, solar and biomass energy sources
        Introduce a national food policy to support Canadian farmers


Both the above are clipped from Wikipedia. It's easy to notice many similarities between the two parties--and easy to see that both are fundamentally distant in ethos and philosophy from the Conservatives.


In answer to Charmion's cogent question, 'What to do?', I suggest we have a starting place.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 08:51 PM

Regardless of the NDP's clear support for international peace efforts, and internatioal military action through the United Nations (when needed), I don't see how anyone could tag a lack of investment in the Canadian military, since the 60's (when the NDP was formed) on that party. As to this position influencing many voters, I suspect it has at specific time periods, among some voter demographics, and in some locals. Let's not also forget that general public support for military spending (in regards to other government spending priorities) differs today from various points from the 60's to the 2000's.

Sorry gnu, your statement about "back in the day" is so vague to me that it is meaningless to the discussion. If you don't want to be more specific,, ok - your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 12 - 09:26 PM

Given their general platform and their general attitude, I like the NDP by far the best of the 3 parties. I like the Liberals next after them. I don't like the Conservatives at all, though there was a time (the pre-Mulroney era) when I liked them fine. They weren't a bunch of neocons then.

I think the Liberals and NDP should form a coalition of some kind and get the Conservatives out of office...ASAP. Then get us out of the USA's wars.

The NDP's suggestion that national medical insurance should include dental and prescription drug coverage is brilliant...and long overdue. Dental expenses can be very large indeed, and many people with low incomes simply can't afford them.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 06:40 AM

Ed... I think I'll stick to my first post.

I plead "the Lobster".

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 07:19 AM

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 07:38 PM

The Hair flies 2 cars to India on the taxpayers tab. Surely a rickshaw would have sufficed!
Fools Folly

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 12 - 08:06 PM

"Harper's personal security appears to have been tightened recently."

Good idea. 'Specially if he comes down home. I know he wouldn't be welcomed in my neighbourhood so awful much. And I live in town. See him travel in seafarin and lumberin an minin country down home?... better bring in a fookin tank.

I wonder. Do them there Indian fellers know he don't trust em fer his security? A bit of a slap in the face of our commonwealth brothers innit?

Of course, I gotta admit, if his security is in doubt here in New Brunswick... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 06:01 AM

I think he wants to look Presidential, and what says "really, really important" louder than a bullet-proof car flown in for your motoring convenience?

The traditional next step is a see-thru dome on top of the car a la His Holiness John Paul II.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 02:50 PM

I just hope that someday he'll be known as Stephen Harper The Last.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:08 PM

Why not a pipeline east?

Wagons East?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:11 PM

'I think parliament's going to die': Ignatieff predicts end of Western democracies."




Is parliament becoming pointless?

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:15 PM

Hating PC Party not criminal, judge rules 8

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 06 Nov 12 - 03:40 PM

Halifax? Well, Dartmouth, but I wouldn't expect The Big Smoke to know the difference.

Anyway, fuck Imperial. It only needs to go to Saint John... a CANUCK refinery.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 02:44 PM

"If a federal election were held in Canada today and Justin Trudeau were at the helm of the Liberal Party, they'd win a strong majority in the House of Commons, says a Forum Poll for the National Post."

National Post

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM

I suspect the poll results are because he has not been subject to a major negative PR campaign - yet that is. I speculate that one will evolve shortly after the leadership is determined (they could be already prepared and "in waiting"). Time will tell how well he deals with that type of situation, and just how many skeltons from his past will emerge - it would likely include any unpopular aspects of his late fathers career.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 04:16 PM

"...because he has not been subject to a major negative PR campaign - yet that is..."

Ahhhh, but the Libs wrote the book on evading such when a new leader was chosen behind closed doors. Pierre was a man's man, true and honest. Jean was a politician and the "politics" of electing a Lib will shine. Will the electorate go along? We'll see. I just hope that if Justin does go all the way, he did inherit his old man's balls (likely) and he can wield the kind of backroom power his old man had (dubious perhaps but quite possible if Jean and others pull strings for him... we'll see).

Personally, I just have a gut feeling he actually could go all the way. I know that really does sound silly but it's possible. Perhaps more than most might think.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 05:08 PM

""Ahhhh, but the Libs wrote the book on evading such when a new leader was chosen behind closed doors""

Regardless of how they were selected- I recall the last two liberal leaders faced a significant negative PR campaign and did not deal with it well or evade it at all.I suspect it contributed to their downfall.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 06:03 PM

Neither of the last two leaders of the Libs were street fighters.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 06:35 PM

The question is, will the new one be a "street fighter"?

Here is a related PET interview, where he talks about negative political-personal attacks:PET

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 07:07 PM

And it can backfire, big time.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 08 Feb 13 - 07:11 PM

"last two liberal leaders" were sacrificial hams.

"street fighter" = "his old man's balls"

To me, if Justin can go all the way and IF he is a "street fighter" like his old man, we may gain back some ground. Tough fight that will involve every voter. I KNOW that sounds inane but wtf else can we hope for? MORE of toady Harper style government is frightening. It may be too late to put the FERA into foreign governments and investors but...

I think I'll stop there... it's obvious where I am going. To bed fairly soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 10:19 AM

Marc Garneau Quits: Sources

CP | Posted: 03/13/2013 9:42 am EDT | Updated: 03/13/2013 10:07 am EDT

OTTAWA — Marc Garneau is ending his bid to lead the federal Liberal party because he's come to the conclusion he can't catch front-runner Justin Trudeau, a source close to the campaign says.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly about the campaign, said Garneau would make the formal announcement at a news conference this morning.

The source says Garneau — a former astronaut and the first Canadian in space — has decided Trudeau simply has too much momentum to be stopped before the voting begins early next month.

His decision leaves seven candidates in the running.

Sources tell The Huffington Post Canada the former astronaut will throw his support behind front-runner Justin Trudeau.

Garneau, an MP since 2008, kicked off his campaign last November, stressing the economy as his key issue.

The 64-year-old retired navy captain and former head of the Canadian Space Agency said the Liberals had to address economic issues if they hoped to remain relevant.

"At the core of my vision is a stronger economy — a vibrant, dynamic one where we are on the leading edge of discovery,'' he said in a policy statement.

Garneau shook up the staid leadership race in recent weeks with some pointed attacks on Trudeau.

He accused Trudeau of failing to offer solid policy proposals. He also warned that the party had gone for untested high-flyers in the past with disastrous results.

But his barbs had little measurable impact on Trudeau's campaign.

Voting for the Liberal leadership will be conducted online and by phone early next month, with the winner to be announced on April 14.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 08:46 PM

Holy crap! He said it's a foregone conclusion so it's best just to get behind it? I would have never seen that coming!

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 09:06 PM

It must be pretty deflating for the other contenders when the purported second in the running quits and says that the result is a foregone conclusion. they must be like "what are we, chopped liver?"

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: Charmion
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 09:24 PM

Their conclusion should be "Um, yes, we do look like chopped liver." Then they should cut their losses and start looking for something useful to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:09 PM

I had a feelin right from the start it was gonna happen. Maybe it was that sense of "Pierre"? Is it a good thing? I sure hope so IF it happens. I just hope that if it does happen, he has at least half the balls his old man had on accounta that will be enough.

I still have my doubts that this youngster can do a good job on the world stage as PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Canucks... Trudeau?
From: meself
Date: 13 Mar 13 - 11:52 PM

The thing that troubles me is the effect of the name 'Trudeau' here in the west - I'm not sure that people in central/eastern Canada grasp the depth of antipathy toward the memory of ol' Pierre here. And you can bet the Tories will be milking that ill-feeling for all it's worth. OTOH, Justin may have what it takes to rise above that and pull together the less right-wing elements across the country. It may be helpful if Marc Garneau is prominent at his right hand, to provide an image of the age, experience, achievement, and gravitas that Justin may be thought to lack.