Justin Trudeau = Harper with a smile

1277 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Yeah, Trudeau is an elitist bastard. Now - why would Mulcair allow this hypocritical twit to lead on this issue? Or do we now start a campaign about the dangers of marijuana? Pass the gravol, please, while we await the Dear Leader's next whimsical policy twist.

Well, that's a fair question. What the hell does Mulcair think he's doing? Why is he letting Trudeau look like the answer on this? Now that is a question I wish someone had an answer to.

Mulcair is running a VERY cautious campaign. I suspect it has something to do with his Quebec experience, where "official opposition" = "government in waiting", and all you have to do is wait until people get mad enough about the government. In that sense, it's not a campaign at all. He's literally just doing his job as the opposition leader, and waiting until 2015.

He underestimates peoples' thirst for change. The thirst led voters to move towards the NDP in 2011. It led them to vote for Rob Fucking Ford. On the other hand, the NDP in BC ran a safe campaign of "practical steps", and the people looking for "life-changing leaps" stayed home.

It's not that I don't think Mulcair believes in change. He wouldn't have run as a New Democrat in 2008 if he didn't believe in change. I just think he's afraid of his own shadow, and has trouble thinking outside the box of press interviews and question periods. Mulcair doesn't want people to get scared by promoting too much change. He'd rather just be competent, and wait until people get mad enough about Harper that they ask for change, and default to the "government in waiting".

Apply that approach to the marijuana issue.

The Liberal and NDP positions on marijuana are basically the same -- both want to explore the path to legalization starting with decriminalization. But Mulcair is presenting it as a very safe and cautious policy, where decriminalization is a middle ground, and legalization has to be subject to committee. Trudeau is presenting his recent turnaround as a dramatic transformation.

The voters want a dramatic transformation.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Yeah, Trudeau is an elitist bastard. Now - why would Mulcair allow this hypocritical twit to lead on this issue? Or do we now start a campaign about the dangers of marijuana? Pass the gravol, please, while we await the Dear Leader's next whimsical policy twist.

Well, that's a fair question. What the hell does Mulcair think he's doing? Why is he letting Trudeau look like the answer on this? Now that is a question I wish someone had an answer to.

Mulcair is running a VERY cautious campaign. I suspect it has something to do with his Quebec experience, where "official opposition" = "government in waiting", and all you have to do is wait until people get mad enough about the government. In that sense, it's not a campaign at all. He's literally just doing his job as the opposition leader, and waiting until 2015.

Makes sense. That strategy worked for Andre Boisclair in Quebec in 2007 and again for Mario Dumont the following year, Sharon Carstairs in Manitoba in 1990, Dwain Lingenfelter in Saskatchewan in 2011, and Stephane Dion federally in 2008 and Michael Ignatieff in 2011.

Someone should tell him that even then, it's not unheard of for the Official Opposition to be knocked out of second place.

Seriously, what will it take to get through to this man?

nicky
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Yeah, Trudeau is an elitist bastard. Now - why would Mulcair allow this hypocritical twit to lead on this issue? Or do we now start a campaign about the dangers of marijuana? Pass the gravol, please, while we await the Dear Leader's next whimsical policy twist.

Well, that's a fair question. What the hell does Mulcair think he's doing? Why is he letting Trudeau look like the answer on this? Now that is a question I wish someone had an answer to.

Mulcair is running a VERY cautious campaign. I suspect it has something to do with his Quebec experience, where "official opposition" = "government in waiting", and all you have to do is wait until people get mad enough about the government. In that sense, it's not a campaign at all. He's literally just doing his job as the opposition leader, and waiting until 2015.

Makes sense. That strategy worked for Andre Boisclair in Quebec in 2007 and again for Mario Dumont the following year, Sharon Carstairs in Manitoba in 1990, Dwain Lingenfelter in Saskatchewan in 2011, and Stephane Dion federally in 2008 and Michael Ignatieff in 2011.

Someone should tell him that even then, it's not unheard of for the Official Opposition to be knocked out of second place.

Seriously, what will it take to get through to this man?

You forgot Adrian's Waiting for Godot campaign.  One small step at a time. The BC NDP were in effect promising that in about 50 years we might have overturned the cuts from the Campbell decade.

Mulcair's daring proposals will take until I am long dead to overturn the Harper cuts let alone get at the Martin cuts.

socialdemocrati...

I don't think people will see it as hypocrisy. I think people just assume politicians are hypocrites now. For sure there's lots of politicians who have done drugs who still talk and vote like puritans. I suspect people will see more opportunism and hypocrisy in the politicians attacking Trudeau, since half of them will probably be pot smokers themselves.

There are tons of politicians who criticize things that they themselves do. The "honesty" part is going to be much more of a story. Trudeau might be one of the only MPs who has actually admitted to smoking pot. That's why it's a story. That, plus the fact that the media would report when a Trudeau farted, and that it smelled amazing.

voice of the damned

There are tons of politicians who criticize things that they themselves do. The "honesty" part is going to be much more of a story. Trudeau might be one of the only MPs who has actually admitted to smoking pot.

Well, Trudeau might not be MORALLY worse than other pot-smoking politicians who vote for tough drug sentences. But he's a lot stupider. Or maybe just elitist to the point of stupidity.

I think we can all agree that Rev. Ted Haggard was a hypocrite for campaigning against gay-rights, and then getting caught engaging in gay sex. But it would have taken things to a whole new level of bizarro if Haggard had started happily BRAGGING about all the gay sex he had been having at the same time that he had been campaigning against gay rights.

Yes, lots of people in the elite believe in one law for themselves, and one law for everyone else. But only Trudeau seems to think it's a good idea to advertise this as his personal philosophy.

Or perhaps Trudeau really is just too clueless to see any contradiction between his votes and his actions, much less imagine that anyone else would draw the connection. Maybe he just compartamentalizes his votes and his dope-smoking in two entirely different parts of his minds, and never the twain shall meet. In any case, it demonstrates a very odd psyche.

 

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"Or perhaps Trudeau really is just too clueless to see any contradiction between his votes and his actions, much less imagine that anyone else would draw the connection. Maybe he just compartamentalizes his votes and his dope-smoking in two entirely different parts of his minds, and never the twain shall meet. In any case, it demonstrates a very odd psyche"

He is just like Obama. They are two peas in a pod.

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Liberals like to present their policies as an alternative to some kind of American-style Republicanism. But the truth is Steven Harper has run the government like a Paul Martin Liberal, from the silence on social issues, right down to the kickbacks and cronyism.

I agree.  In fact, I'd even say in some respects we did worse under Chretien/Martin than we're doing under Harper.  To deal with tough financial times, Chretien/Martin cut transfer payments to health and education, which (in Ontario anyway) led to closures of schools, hospitals, services, etc, accompanied by downloading.  The reality is that the Libs never dealt with the economy, they simply transferred the woes to the provinces and cities.  Harper's Cons have not cut transfers to health and education and have vowed not to.

socialdemocrati...

voice of the damned wrote:

There are tons of politicians who criticize things that they themselves do. The "honesty" part is going to be much more of a story. Trudeau might be one of the only MPs who has actually admitted to smoking pot.

Well, Trudeau might not be MORALLY worse than other pot-smoking politicians who vote for tough drug sentences. But he's a lot stupider. Or maybe just elitist to the point of stupidity.

I think we can all agree that Rev. Ted Haggard was a hypocrite for campaigning against gay-rights, and then getting caught engaging in gay sex. But it would have taken things to a whole new level of bizarro if Haggard had started happily BRAGGING about all the gay sex he had been having at the same time that he had been campaigning against gay rights.

I don't disagree with you. But if Ted Haggard presented it properly, he could be a hero. "Part of me coming out in favor of equality for gays is that I had been in relationships with gay men four or five times in my life. In my early days in congress, I did vote against it. But now my views have changed."

There's a reason why politicians hire PR agents. They're able to turn negatives into positives, and positives into negatives. Look at the media. It's working.

 

 

 

 

 

 

socialdemocrati...

mark_alfred wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Liberals like to present their policies as an alternative to some kind of American-style Republicanism. But the truth is Steven Harper has run the government like a Paul Martin Liberal, from the silence on social issues, right down to the kickbacks and cronyism.

I agree.  In fact, I'd even say in some respects we did worse under Chretien/Martin than we're doing under Harper.  To deal with tough financial times, Chretien/Martin cut transfer payments to health and education, which (in Ontario anyway) led to closures of schools, hospitals, services, etc, accompanied by downloading.  The reality is that the Libs never dealt with the economy, they simply transferred the woes to the provinces and cities.  Harper's Cons have not cut transfers to health and education and have vowed not to.

I'd agree. The Harper government has been worse on procedural stuff -- prorogation and omnibus bills and elimination of the census. But the Liberals have been barely better. The OLP used prorogation in the same cynical way. The federal Liberals may not have destroyed the census, but they certainly ignored it when they made those cuts to transfer payments. And I fully agree with you that the Liberals were worse on the economy. The Harper cuts have not been nearly as deep as the Martin cuts. But the Liberal cuts have better PR, because they're supposedly agents of progress and champions of the middle class.

janfromthebruce

Agree completely. Chretien/Martin engaged in complete economic restructuring in sync with global restructuring. Linda McQuaig deconstructed it all quite well and in language we all can understand.

Shooting the Hippo
Linda McQuaig

Toronto: Viking, 1995 Reviewed by Howard A. Doughty

Linda McQuaig deserves credit. In defiance of what now passes for common sense, she insists on telling the truth. Shooting the Hippo is the latest in a series of four pithy reports on the Canadian economy and on the stories we tell ourselves about it. She has previously taken on such dense topics as taxation, international trade and social welfare policy, and rendered them both comprehensible and compelling. Now, her subject is public debt. You must search very hard to find Canadians who are undaunted by government spending. When you find them, however, chances are they have read Linda McQuaig's book.

They Liberals came into power in 1993.

And if one thinks that anything different is going on - think again - oh look on Rabble.ca

Shooting baby hippos for the sake of austerity By Linda McQuaig | July 3, 2012

Malling's cautionary tale, which helped pitch an austerity agenda to Canadians 20 years ago, wouldn't seem out of place today, as we're once again being urged to hunker down for lean, mean times.

And so it is that the waterfront park at Ontario Place -- a summer highlight for tens of thousands of children -- has met the fate of the baby hippo, as Dalton McGuinty's government tries to convince us we can't afford to provide this healthy, active recreation for our children for the next five years. Also on the hit list -- school playgrounds. Some 600 sites may soon be sold off by the cash-deprived Toronto school board. (Not to worry, there are still malls where our children can hang out.)

Meanwhile, at the federal level, the Harper government has just taken away two years of retirement benefits from millions of Canadians, with its decision to raise the entitlement age (starting in 2023) to 67. Harper never hinted at this major change during the last election campaign, but now insists it's essential to keep government finances solvent -- a claim that Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page has dismissed as "silly."

Why that's reference Trudeau's liberal buddy McGuinty is another smooth talker!

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"I think Jack Layton was the Pied Piper leading the lemmings to their deaths in 2011." I don't understand your point. Are you saying the NDP could never have won and Jack (blessed be his memory) should have campaigned badly so the Libs would win?

The point I made in the post you are quoting is that under our corrupt voting system FPP, the NDP will never form the government. That's because 3-way center-left voting splitting weakens center-left parties giving a united Conservative party an unearned advantage. Right-leaning voters make up 40% of the electorate. A fake majority is at 39%. So conservatives now call the shots.

If we change to PR or the ranked ballot, the NDP will be able to make regular breakthroughs and form governments, as opposed to forming the Official Opposition once every 75 years... (Of course, the only way we'll get PR is if the NDP form the government. So that's a Catch-22...)

voice of the damned

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

There are tons of politicians who criticize things that they themselves do. The "honesty" part is going to be much more of a story. Trudeau might be one of the only MPs who has actually admitted to smoking pot.

Well, Trudeau might not be MORALLY worse than other pot-smoking politicians who vote for tough drug sentences. But he's a lot stupider. Or maybe just elitist to the point of stupidity.

I think we can all agree that Rev. Ted Haggard was a hypocrite for campaigning against gay-rights, and then getting caught engaging in gay sex. But it would have taken things to a whole new level of bizarro if Haggard had started happily BRAGGING about all the gay sex he had been having at the same time that he had been campaigning against gay rights.

I don't disagree with you. But if Ted Haggard presented it properly, he could be a hero. "Part of me coming out in favor of equality for gays is that I had been in relationships with gay men four or five times in my life. In my early days in congress, I did vote against it. But now my views have changed."

There's a reason why politicians hire PR agents. They're able to turn negatives into positives, and positives into negatives. Look at the media. It's working.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but Trudeau didn't even try to be as consistent as you have Haggard being in your scenario. To truly match Trudeau's level of audacity, Hagaard would have to openly brag about having gay sex, without apologizing for his previous votes.

I know Trudeau has now come out in favour of legalization. But as far as I know, he has not apologized to anyone who, partly as a result of his vote, went to jail for supplying the very substance that he thinks is totally cool to smoke with his buddies around the pool.

(And minor point of fact, Haggard didn't vote on anything, he was a clergyman who led anti-gay campaigns).