Harper's inexperience - this is serious folks

[emailforcanada]

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.

[Ginuwinemj]

This is who Canada wants as a pm. You conservatives are so oblivious as to what Canada is going to face. People may dislike Liberals and Paul Martin but at least his party has more experience at the top and that is what counts. Harper is going to look to Bush for tips, and then Canada will be doomed. Alot of people don't care now, they want "change", but at what cost?

[geoffrey]

So we should just stick to the Liberals forever because they will constantly be more experienced?

How ridiculous. So when do we change? When we import a party that's been in power somewhere else?

[kimmy]

Paul Martin does indeed have a proven track record. He has proven that he's not very good at his job and should find another line of work.

I'm sorry, but there it is. The fact that he's been to G8 conferences and rubbed elbows with other world leaders isn't enough to make up for the fact that he's such a weak leader, or for the damage that'll be done to this country if he wins another term in office. For the love of the country, please end the suffering and send Paul Martin back to his sheep farm or his cargo ships or whatever it is he plans to do when he's out of politics.

-k

[emailforcanada]

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

Paul Martin does indeed have a proven track record. He has proven that he's not very good at his job and should find another line of work.

I'm sorry, but there it is. The fact that he's been to G8 conferences and rubbed elbows with other world leaders isn't enough to make up for the fact that he's such a weak leader, or for the damage that'll be done to this country if he wins another term in office. For the love of the country, please end the suffering and send Paul Martin back to his sheep farm or his cargo ships or whatever it is he plans to do when he's out of politics.

-k

[geoffrey]

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

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.

[kimmy]

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

It's a legitimate concern, but a minor one.

Is it better to have a guy who is unproven, or a guy who has proven he's incompetent? I personally would choose the former.

And as I've mentioned, all signs indicate that Paul Martin is finished as Liberal leader even if he wins this election. His replacement as Liberal leader will be inexperienced as well.

-k

[emailforcanada]

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.

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

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.

[geoffrey]

And as I've mentioned, all signs indicate that Paul Martin is finished as Liberal leader even if he wins this election. His replacement as Liberal leader will be inexperienced as well.

-k

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.

[emailforcanada]

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.

And as I've mentioned, all signs indicate that Paul Martin is finished as Liberal leader even if he wins this election. His replacement as Liberal leader will be inexperienced as well.

-k

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.

[geoffrey]

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.

Agreed. Though something to consider. I am very interested in the world but I've done no travelling outside North America. I haven't had the opportunity or money. I wouldn't say he is disinterested, also remember Harper has never been ridiculously rich (being an MP would be his highest paying job I'm sure).

He definately isn't a Trudeau that could afford to spend years aimlessly wandering the world. And I'd argue that did little for him in foreign policy anyways.

Harper is definately weaker on foreign policy. But if your going to say he has no international ability, then you've also got to stop saying he's going to work hand in hand with Bush. Can't really have both.

[Hicksey]

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.

We should elect the Liberals back to office. After all, they have plenty of experience pilfering our tax dollars for trips around the globe.

NOT!

What a joke. I think even with his little experience, Harper will bring Canadian values to the world in a new, less confrontational way than Martin has.

Let's face it. Any idiot can do better than to scream NO! to every comer not in the EU and hurl belittling comments at them for months afterward.

[JMH]

Few Prime Ministers in our history have had sustantial experience in global circles before their appointment to the PMO.

It's widely acknoledged that Mr. Harper is very impresive "one on one" concerning diplomatic affairs.

I do find the "experience" debate amusing on another front however ; Mr. Martin entered public life armed with an arts degree (philosophy), and went on to secure a law degree (what "the privaliged people" do when they dont know what to do) and became our finance minister.

Mr. Harper holds a graduate degree in economics. I'm quite certain that Mr. Harper has a better understanding of the global marketplace, its trends and pitfalls. Intelligent investments and fiscal transparency will be the foundations that permit our future growth.

[betsy]

I'd still choose an "inexperienced" party than a party so well-experienced in corruptions.

[wellandboy]

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.

I'd rather a Prime Minister who has the honesty to admit his weakness than one who pretends. Look at Martin and Chretien as an example. They've blundered through relations with the U.S. , making personal attacks instead of getting results on softwood lumber. Then there's Canada's embarrassing initial aid package to tsnumi victims which was blown out of the water by average Canadian's heartfelt generosity. Martin lured Bono to the Liberal convention with great fanfare, then oops another broken promise. Martin's international experience consists of finding tax havens for CSL, then retroactively changing Canadian laws to suit his personal needs. The Liberals today live with the myth of Canadian leadership abroad, the reality is quite different. Nice try though.

[tml12]

I'd still choose an "inexperienced" party than a party so well-experienced in corruptions.

LOL...forget his "extreme right wing" agenda or, as River_God used to say, his "neo-Fascist double think."

There is a NEW reason not to vote Conservative...Harper is inexperienced!!!

Onward and upward...

[Argus]

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.

Is it? Foreign connections are almost irrelevent to Canada, except one, our relationship with the United States. That is by far and away more important than all other foreign relationships combined. Our entire economy depends on full access to American markets, and on Americans consuming our products (85% of manufactured goods). And with every speech Marting gives he further damages relations with the United States. Every speech is loaded with anti-Americanisms, with dark warnings that Harper would be as bad as those evil Americans and their "extremist" government. Americans rightly resent this, and not just the government. There was a rep from the Board of Trade on TV last week talking about how at one place, workers refused to unload a truckload of goods from Canada because they were angry at Martin's attacks on the US. If substantial numbers of Americans start thinking of us as another France - arrogant, hypocritical and anti-American, they'll refuse to buy from us and it's going to cost us a lot of jobs. Businessmen and investors are American too, and I doubt they're too happy with the continual stream of anti-American commentary coming from our Prime Minister. Will they want to invest in Canada? Or buy from Canada? Most won't care, but some will.

But Martin doesn't care about that. Martin cares only about his desperate need to hang onto power at any cost to the country.

So Harper can hardly do worse than Martin in the area of foreign relations, and will almost certainly do much to repair our frayed relationship with the United States.

[Drea]

Foreign connections are almost irrelevent to Canada, except one, our relationship with the United States

Sure they're irrelevant. LOL

And China is not growing, nor is India. They'll never need our resources. Only one country on earth will ever need our resources so we better kiss their butts and quickly!

Pffft.

I'm not saying the US isn't important as a trading partner but they are not the be-all, end-all of the earth. One day they will realize it, but by then it will be too late. The entire world is set on a course of eliminating trade barriers. America is going to be left in the dust if they don't start realizing this.

Read this book: The World is Flat.

[sage]

Drea, if they need our resources, what the hell difference does it make?

Unless your going to tell me that we are going to exercise our resource richness to remedy human right violations in China this is all a bunch of B.S.

And be real, is any party leader ever going to take the moral high ground in such a fashion if it results in Canadian job losses? Not very damn likely.

Foreign relations. An absolute non-issue for Canadian politics.

[August1991]

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.

email, you're somewhat wrong. On the CBC Town Hall meeting, Harper said he has been to Western Europe and Mexico and then added that as a member of an international Conservative association, he has had contacts with leaders from other countries. As Leader of the Opposition, he would have met all foreign dignitaries who came to Canada. In talking about the travels of his wife, Harper appears to be able to put Cairo and Johannesburg on a map. But Harper was honest (imagine!) when he said that "foreign affairs is not my area of expertise". (Would PM ever say such a thing? Would any Liberal say such a thing?

On the TV show, Harper said that he has been primarily interested in Canada and he added that he has travelled everywhere in the country. Canada is a complicated country to understand, so Harper's lack of international travel is no indication of a lack of intellectual curiousity.

The next G-8 meeting will be in St-Petersburg and if Harper is elected, he will go there and probably do a bilateral in Moscow and somewhere else in Europe on the same trip. I happen to know Russia because I lived there for several years and I have travelled to almost every European country.

I wondered how Harper would handle a G-8 meeting and then one-on-one meetings. IMO, he'll do Canada proud. He's an ordinary, intelligent Canadian. He'll have no problem with foreigners and foreigners nop problem with him.

One last point. There's a false facade of importance when government leaders meet. I hope Harper never takes the facade for reality.

[Wilber]

Steven Harper is 46

John Kennedy was 45 when he became President

Tony Blair was 43 when he became PM

[I miss Reagan]

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.

You Libs are really grasping for anything aren't you. I'm not sure how anyone could be worse than Paul Martin with respect to foreign relations. Not only has the guy burned our bridges with our largest trading partner but has also failed to keep promises on Kyoto and foreign aid. Not to mention the guy has no verbal skills and makes us look like fools any time he opens his mouth. I mean seriously we'd might as well have Porky Pig representing us.

[Hicksey]

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.

You Libs are really grasping for anything aren't you. I'm not sure how anyone could be worse than Paul Martin with respect to foreign relations. Not only has the guy burned our bridges with our largest trading partner but has also failed to keep promises on Kyoto and foreign aid. Not to mention the guy has no verbal skills and makes us look like fools any time he opens his mouth. I mean seriously we'd might as well have Porky Pig representing us.

We could take a bum off the streets, clean him up, prop him up and not see a noticeable change. Well, maybe the bum would be a little more coherent ...

[Hollus]

Harper is definately weaker on foreign policy. But if your going to say he has no international ability, then you've also got to stop saying he's going to work hand in hand with Bush. Can't really have both.

Don't understand that logic. Our working relationship with the states seems a little onesided. What could Harper posibly do to resolve this without giving in on issues like missle defence, gay marriage, war on drugs or invading countries on false pretense for oil? Sure we can solve cattle and softwood, we just have to give up on having or own national identiy. So when this comes to pass and Im over "liberating" Iran or North Korea, I wont be hear to tell all you Harper supporters 'I told ya so', so... I told ya so.

[I miss Reagan]

Harper is definately weaker on foreign policy. But if your going to say he has no international ability, then you've also got to stop saying he's going to work hand in hand with Bush. Can't really have both.

Don't understand that logic. Our working relationship with the states seems a little onesided. What could Harper posibly do to resolve this without giving in on issues like missle defence, gay marriage, war on drugs or invading countries on false pretense for oil? Sure we can solve cattle and softwood, we just have to give up on having or own national identiy. So when this comes to pass and Im over "liberating" Iran or North Korea, I wont be hear to tell all you Harper supporters 'I told ya so', so... I told ya so.

What planet are you living on? It has to do with diplomacy or simply manners. Harper won't bash the US in public to win some emotional points with insecure Candians. Conservative MP's won't fire off anti-Bush venom. Harper won't pull out of a deal with out first notifying the people he made the deal with. Harper won't use cheap-shot anti-American campaign ads to to maintain power. It's called statemanship, you libs ought to look into that and re-examine your definition of tolerance.