emailforcanada

Bush and his crew, through their blind arrogance and an incredibly idiotic approach, have made a complete mess of Iraq. They are on the brink of civil war...with severe lack of medical supplies, constant power outages and now it is coming out more now that untold thousands of innocent women and children have died or been maimed by US bombing. We do not see much of the pictures of children with limbs ripped off and 3rd degree burns. On top of that, the Bush administration has put their own citizens in even more danger than they ever were before and have only exacerbated the dangers instead of making their country safer.. That is not just shabby, it is an embarrassment to the people of America and will be for years to come. There are those in the US who still have their head stuck in the sand.... long held beliefs they hold are so very so hard to let go of, that in fact it is almost impossible for some people to even accept that the US is in trouble because of all this insanity. There are radio stations with these raving fanatics running 24/7. Many of us have friends or relatives in the US... for their sake, I hope that someone has the courage soon to stand up to the Bush administration and turn things around. It shows that the wrong leader can be absolutely disasterous. While not suggesting for a millisecond that Harper is the same as Bush... there are still very serious concerns about the choices he has made and consequently serious concerns about what kind of mess he could potentially get us into. You know those lefties don't believe freedom is important, they'd rather see dictatorships that occasionally feed their people in order to raise armies or what not.

Hmmm Harper... a thinking PM eh? Yes, thinking about how to suck up to Bush... ..thinking how on earth to implement the poorly thought out cg tax promise... that is one promise that has enormous ramifications in terms of managmenet, costs, figuring out the rules ,exceptions and monitoring. Certainly not a sign of PM material who thinks things through. He wasnt thinking when was decided to puch so hard for us to follow Bush into the Iraq mess. He would need to be thinking about how to achieve his rw agenda without facing the inevitable backlash. Harper has done a fine job of hiding his true face this time around. He and his team have done much thinking about winning and election strategies this election, and not at all enough about Canada' best interest long term. The two page spread shows that he is willing the belittle Canada when it suits him. Slightly different angle to the term ...thinking. Is this the speech you are referring to? CBCDid the Globe publish that speech too? The CBC has had it posted on their web site for ages. (The CBC and the Globe are both based in Toronto, I note.) I found Harper's speech interesting, and thought-provoking. It lacked elegance. The reaction to it in English-Canada reminds me of the reactions to many of Trudeau's essays written in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before he became PM. At various times, people were always digging up quotes of Trudeau. In Harper, Canada will once again have a thinking prime minister.

Who ever you support it is totally true that the media plays a critical role. As much as we might like to think otherwise, most people based their core opinions on what the see on TV or read in the headlines. When we see bias either way it is uncomfortable and frustrating. In general the folks in the media feel they are infalible and will seldom acknowledge that they could do a better job CTV has been particularly dissappointing. Actually this is the first campaign where I'm not complaining about CBC interference. If anyone here watched the 'Your Turn' segements, you would have seen that Martin got the roughest ride, and Harper pretty much had no questions that were too difficult. I was expecting some abortion, same-sex marriage, or even American influence questions... none. It was all accountability and tax reform, the topics that conservatives do best on. Maybe this helps the Mansbridge/Harper friendship theory. That "Your Turn" interview was based on a random selection of people and their questions. I suppose the CBC could bias the final choice of questions presented. And Mansbridge did follow-up questions. I only saw Harper's interview and I too was surprised at how easy it was. ---- I'm reticent to claim the media is a cabal with an agenda. But most of the English-Canadian media is concentrated in Toronto and it reflects this view. In this election, it appears the Liberals will mostly win seats in Toronto, English Montreal and Vancouver. Urban journalists will be looking for fault in Harper's performance. Harper could do as Mulroney (and Trudeau and Richard Nixon) and go over journalists' heads and speak directly to Canadians. For this, Harper is going to have to develop a relationship with ordinary Canadians, something that he is just starting to do.

Bush PR people wrote superb speeches for him that fooled a lot of people. While Harper has a well run campaign in recent weeks, the true measure of hwat you can expect is from him, looking at what he said over the last few years. Globe and Mail just ran a 2 page spread of one of his speeches to the right wing in the US. This is the true Harper and considering he was talking to, this is the true allegiance. Nothing ... abolutely nothing can change or take back those words. Stop Harper tomorrow. Yeah, that's worked out so well for the Americans.

That's garbage. Not the fault of the American people? We aren't talking about some dictatorship in Africa. Americans vote in their leaders. You are clueless. Surely you reconize the low approval rating in the states. You must realize the Bush admins policies have caused alot of division in the american public, I dont see how our aliennation could be much different.

Let's adress: "But polite conversation is a much better way to make way toward real negotiation and progress." Look ... this trade dispute started off over 2 years ago if I am not mistaken... someone correct me if I am but it has been in lay a long time. For the LONGEST time, arrogant people currently running the show in the US gave us the finger. We were polite and dipolmatic but time and time again, when we called them on how they are screwing us .... we again got the finger. I am actually proud and amazed how patient we have been... and even now, in spite of the insulting behaoviuor and arrogance from those currently in power in the US, we STILL are willing to hold out the hand of friendship. That is because ost Canadians know that Bush's time is limited that he, and those responsible for treating their best friend this way are NOT representative of all Americans. There is viscious backlash in the US by Americans who are discusted by their leadership. No leader shoudl put up with it. Absolutely none. We said that is enough and we are standing firm. That is the right thing to do.

Excellent point. Have you noticed that when a concern is raised about Harper, the folks on this thread who are his suporters can only try to point elsewhere and claim .. "see.. he is not as bad as this other guy". That is a complete acceptance and admission that IS a serious issue .. one that these folks do not want to face or acknowledge. The other thing you will find is that they will try to claim that this is 'liberal plant' .... you see, they believe that anybody who raises serious concerns about Harper is automatically 'a plant' ... or 'a troll' or some other false accustiaon. All of this in end end, just bolsters the case that they have an indefensible situation and quite understandably, they are frustrated. This is becuase there is simply no credible response to this other than to acknowledge it as an issue that is causing concenr for Canadians. If there was at least an acknowledgement, it would be worth the time to hear out their other opinions.

Perhaps, but I would venture to guess that even a less experienced contender from any party could at least say that they at least had an interest to travel to somewhere other that Mexico and that they actually did so. Harper clearly has shown very little interest to begin with and would have a much longer way to go to learn and gain any credability. Inexperience is somewhat worrisome. Inexperience combined with a historical lack of interest to begin with is I think very telling. Thats a good point. Martin is running heavily on his 'leadership ability.' Anything short of a majority Liberal government (next to hell freezing over in my most recent list of unlikely events) will cost him his job though. How many people do you think would be voting for a Liberal government without Martin at the helm? What if Ignatieff or God forbid the Trudeau kid led the party (not saying thats likely, don't worry)? The inexperience would be there too.

At this time, foreign policy, international trade and international relations are more key to Canada than most times in our recent history. We must get this right. There are some major shifts in economic power underway and there needs to be careful, strategic and most of all, knoweldgeable and experienced navigation of these seas. We can end up with 5 internal priorities perfectly nailed but without nailing the external and global pieces, they will be very ineffective in the long run for Canada. I myself am concerned. But that won't change my vote (and I vote directly for Harper), like I've said, I'll take inexperience over ignorance. Martin isn't a good foreign leader, I don't know why anyone would take him over Harper. Harper sounds way more professional, concise and educated. Martin sounds emotional, defensive and brash. Harper would stand against the US on things like softwood lumber and BSE. Martin would stand against the US with anti-American attacks when politically convienient. Remember, Martin also supported Missile Defense and going to Iraq. No one believes a word out of his mouth on the world stage.

So as assume that you acknowledge that Harper's lack of experience is an understandable concern.

The most important thing to note about responses like this is that ultimately it shows that there is an complete acceptance of the issue raised about Harper. There is clearly no defence and it is a completely understandable reaction. Look, this is not intended as a personal insult to Harper - just a recognition that a there are some key criteria for the job, and he is missing them. Most Canadians know the importance of having experience - especially in foreign affairs. If you were hiring someone for a job and a large part of that job function included closing international trade deals and defining foreign policy.... having practically zero experience would be a very big concern. Hiring a PM is no different. >

These are understandable reactions under the circumstances and predictable attempts for divert or minimize the issue can be expected from Harper die hard fans. This latest piece of information just underscores that there is a serious concern among many Canadians about the level of inexperience of Harper. It is a matter of great importance when considering who to vote for and expecially in this age where global awareness and competency is critical. . Better a man who's inexperienced on the world stage than a man who's proven he's a weak and ineffective leader. I notice you didn't respond to my previous message, Mr Discourse. Are you unwilling, unable, or still trying to locate the appropriate Liberal Party pamphlets? -k

A question was posed on TV to Harper about his foreign policy experience ( CBC Your Turn ). The question was framed in the context of dealing with other leaders who are vastly more experienced than he. What Harper acknowledged about his inexperience was even more concerning than previously thought. When asked about his foreign policy experience. Harper agreed that he has very little. When asked if he has even travelled internationally. His response was not much.... but... that he has been to Mexico. In this day and age, it is critical that our PM have some experience in areas like foreign trade, international affairs and thre G8 summit. This is a serious gap folks.

#6. Harper's inexperience - exposed on TV tonight. I knew Harper was inexperienced, but my jaw dropped when he was asked by the viewer on 'Your Turn' tonight about his foreign policy experience. His answer: Very little. When asked if he ever even travelled? Not much.... "but I have been to Mexico" Said Harper. This is worthy of a separate topic.... but underscores a major concern and another reason why Harper is a poor choice for PM. He will likely not do well for Canada at the G8 summit.

OK - I have addressed each and every one of Kimmy's points below. You say you want reasonable discourse, but you haven't responded to any of the replies you've gotten. That doesn't sound like you're here for "reasonable discourse", it sounds like you're just here to proselytize. Answer: Be clear please about the replies you are referring to. I welcome the counter points and have responded to many already. You criticize Harper for advocating involvement in Iraq, but Martin did the same. How is Martin an improvement? Answer: I do not agree at all that Martin and Harper had the same response to that situation. You praise Martin's management of our relations on the international stage, but Martin has worsened our relationship with our most important ally and trading partner. How smart is that? Answer: Everyone knows that we have been consistently given the finger by our largest trading partner in spite of the fact that we were both diplomatic and polite for the longest time. We showed enormous patience and yet each time we called out how our trading 'partner' was screwing us we again, got the finger. In spite of this the majority of Canadians can appreciate that the current administration is not necessarily representative of all Americans, and we still offer the hand of friendship. That says a lot. No leader of Canada, absolutely none, should just go along with this arrogant and insulting behavior without making a firm stand. That is the smart thing to do. That is the right thing to do and it shows enormous patience that it took so long to let those currently running the show with now in the US, in no uncertain terms, that their behavior is wrong and we will not put up with it. It is those arrogant people who are currently running the show in the US that worsened the relationship not us. Now in the past, Harper has indicated that he would prefer to have Canada act liek a puppy dog that just goes along with whatever our big neighbor wants. That is not the kind of leader we need. You talk about disunity in the Conservative party, but ignore the fact that the Liberals are now openly fighting. You ignore the fact that Martin's own party members have already begun campaigning to replace him. Why would Canadians even consider voting for a guy who's a LAME DUCK before he's even elected? Answer: Now it is you who is not addressing the point that was raised. Bear in mind that pointing to another political party for comparison is simply avoiding the issue. You talk about Martin's capable and experienced leadership, but presently it doesn't look like Martin would be capable of leading a sing-along at band-camp. Is a guy who can't even keep his own campaign under control really somebody who should be running the country? Answer: I agree that the perception is that the campaign looks less organized. Look, it is nothing to me what you think of Martin but anyone can throw out loose analogies. That is very easy to do. When I referred to reasonable intelligent discourse, I meant utilizing intelligent points and arguments ... not pathetic methaphores . If a point is worth making and the case is strong enough, it should not need to be be exaggerated. You accused Harper of causing instability to the country? There's no bigger threat to our stability than Quebec separatism, and the Liberals are incapable of addressing it. Answer: That is your opinion. I disagree completly. You accuse Harper of inventing gimmick policies on the fly? Name one. And then address the most glaring example of a gimmick-policy invented on the fly of the election, Martin's spur-of-the-moment revelation that he'd revoke the notwithstanding clause. Answer: Intelligent discourse does not mean providing a set of instruction for how the other person must respond. I will name one glaring example. On an interview about the campaign policies, Happer said ... and this is an exact quote: ".. we have introduced some policies in this campaign, and we will probably throw in a couple more before the campaign ends". Those words 'throw in' are very telling. I do not know for sure yet which ones were thrown in but a good indication is one that has broad ramifications that were not fully thought through. As much as I love the idea of avoiding capital gains.. there is increasing awareness that the ramifications of setting the rules, managing, monitoring and implementing this are huge in terms of costs and probably a nightmare for CCRA. You talk about Harper just pointing fingers and criticizing and having no vision of his own? Absurd. The Conservatives have articulated their policies and their vision day after day after day in this election, while the Liberals have done almost nothing except attack Harper. Answer: If there is one point I will agree needed to be much better articulated it is this one. I am sure Harper has a vision but I do not get a good sense that it is as well though out as it should be. Also - I truly beleive that Harper has spend more time on the election strategy than on a vision for Canada. But you don't really have a response to any of that, do you. You'll just keep on churning out the same stuff, cross-posting it to different forums, deep in denial of the fact that your guy is a weak lame-duck leader who doesn't even have the backing of his own party anymore, in denial of the fact that the Liberals have driven this country to the brink of a unity crisis. -k