Au revoir, Paul Martin!
POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Thursday, February 9, 2006 06:52
VIEWED: 3559
PAGE 2 of 4
Sure, opposition to the war is a positive position. An American presidential candidate, say John Kerry, could have done very well by opposing the war. Why he didn't can only be speculated on, I suspect it goes to the democrat parties true stance, and Kerry's being not all that bright. Either that or he was just intentionally throwing the election.
But, and I know jack about Canadian politics, it seems that Martin went much further than that, going to a full out anti-American stance.
While I don't know jack about it, I can see that the liberal slipped 14 points from an 8 lead since '04. In two years that's impressive. It's possible more than one thing is wrong.
When I try to think of an American president to lose that much support, I'm coming up all Johnson, but technically he didn't run because he lost the '68 primary.
Quote:
Yeah he probably will be, although he won't take shit from the US either.
Wouldn't expect him to. I'm not the sort who thinks Tony Blair is a great ally. I expect people to look after their own interests. I don't expect to see Canadian troops in Hillary's upcoming invasion of Iran. I think it's a mistake to support America when shes wrong.
On oil, the whole Alberta story, they're claiming to have more oil than Saudi Arabia, it was in the news, maybe it's an exaggeration, but if it's true, then when are we dancing with Saudi princess? What's with this hoser Bush and this kerfuffle in the mideast, eh?
Anyway, just giving a "here's what it looks like to an uninformed American" perspective.
Quote:
You and I have two things in common: we're both alive, and we both like Firefly.
Lol. This was funny. I feel this way sometimes.
Quote:
If he trys to join the US on missile defence,
Why wouldn't he? Missile defense is a great idea. Why would you oppose it? I would assume Harper would want Canadians not to get nuked. This is not an issue yet, but it sure will be when Bin Laden gets his hand on a nuke. Which eventually he will.
Honestly, I can't see the softwood as being more than a nitpicky point. The canadian economy is large in charge an sophisticated, and not based on lumber.
I still think the election results show the strength of anti-Americanism, in my uninformed way. Nobody likes social programs being slashed, but it didn't cost reagan or clinton any votes, or bush for that matter. I don't think there are enough people hinging on this point. Since I know that canada is a wealthier country than the US, I would suspect it's less of a life-changing issue in Canada than here. More people may feel that it
s right to have them, but probable fewer than actually rely on them, and those are the votes you're likely to lose. If Harper makes progress in the private sector economy, creates jobs, etc., then any cuts he makes on social programs will probably not do him that much damage.
Just putting my ignorant two cents in
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, opposition to the war is a positive position. An American presidential candidate, say John Kerry, could have done very well by opposing the war. Why he didn't can only be speculated on, I suspect it goes to the democrat parties true stance, and Kerry's being not all that bright. Either that or he was just intentionally throwing the election.
I dont see that at all. A opposition Presidential canidate in wartime is in an almost impossible position. Why? because amongst the honourifics attached to the Presidency is the title of "Commander in Chief" it becomes very easy for a wartime encombant to wrap themselves in the flag and bask in the reflected glory and the respect Americans show their fighting men.
Your ONLY hope is that the war is unpopular, which it wasn't at the time of the election. The Dems pushed Kerry because he had a war record. They could say "yes Bush is Commander in Chief but OUR guy saw actual combat." That was what the "Swiftboat" attack ads were all about to try and remove any argument Kerry had that he would make a better CinC.
So no, at that time an anti war canidate would have lost the election easily because in America it's far too easy to make anti-war somehow equal antitroops or suggest that because the President is "Commander in Chief" dissing him somehow reflects on the average American soldier.
I'm an outsider and even *I* see that. Now politics change very quicky, most Americans no longer back the war and a significant number dislike Bush's handling of it. If the election were held this year MAYBE the antiwar canidate would have a chance but you dont fight next years election you try to appeal to the opinions the voters have the day they enter the polling booth.
As to the new Conservative leader in Canada, don't expect a sea change. I stopped paying attention to Canadian politics ten years ago and back then the Conservatives were nowhere and Reform and the Bloc were the big news. If they follow the pattern of their UK equivalent the Conservatives will be generally more aggressively nationalistic, and given that most Canadians define themselves as "not Americans" that wont make them more "pro Washington."
My guess is that they will tinker with market reforms, some privatisation and tax policy. I doubt that they will do much more than try to manage healthcare costs, when I lived there most Canadians were as proud of their healthcare as the US is of its military -- you will see the Canadian healthcare system go away the same year they sell off the Pentagon and scrap the US navy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, opposition to the war is a positive position. An American presidential candidate, say John Kerry, could have done very well by opposing the war. Why he didn't can only be speculated on, I suspect it goes to the democrat parties true stance, and Kerry's being not all that bright. Either that or he was just intentionally throwing the election.
But, and I know jack about Canadian politics, it seems that Martin went much further than that, going to a full out anti-American stance.
While I don't know jack about it, I can see that the liberal slipped 14 points from an 8 lead since '04. In two years that's impressive. It's possible more than one thing is wrong.
When I try to think of an American president to lose that much support, I'm coming up all Johnson, but technically he didn't run because he lost the '68 primary.Quote:
Yeah he probably will be, although he won't take shit from the US either.
Wouldn't expect him to. I'm not the sort who thinks Tony Blair is a great ally. I expect people to look after their own interests. I don't expect to see Canadian troops in Hillary's upcoming invasion of Iran. I think it's a mistake to support America when shes wrong.
On oil, the whole Alberta story, they're claiming to have more oil than Saudi Arabia, it was in the news, maybe it's an exaggeration, but if it's true, then when are we dancing with Saudi princess? What's with this hoser Bush and this kerfuffle in the mideast, eh?
Anyway, just giving a "here's what it looks like to an uninformed American" perspective.Quote:
You and I have two things in common: we're both alive, and we both like Firefly.
Lol. This was funny. I feel this way sometimes.Quote:
If he trys to join the US on missile defence,
Why wouldn't he? Missile defense is a great idea. Why would you oppose it? I would assume Harper would want Canadians not to get nuked. This is not an issue yet, but it sure will be when Bin Laden gets his hand on a nuke. Which eventually he will.
Honestly, I can't see the softwood as being more than a nitpicky point. The canadian economy is large in charge an sophisticated, and not based on lumber.
I still think the election results show the strength of anti-Americanism, in my uninformed way. Nobody likes social programs being slashed, but it didn't cost reagan or clinton any votes, or bush for that matter. I don't think there are enough people hinging on this point. Since I know that canada is a wealthier country than the US, I would suspect it's less of a life-changing issue in Canada than here. More people may feel that it
s right to have them, but probable fewer than actually rely on them, and those are the votes you're likely to lose. If Harper makes progress in the private sector economy, creates jobs, etc., then any cuts he makes on social programs will probably not do him that much damage.
Just putting my ignorant two cents in
There us a movement up here to pull out of NAFTA over the US violating its trade agreements over softwood lumber.... It might not be our entire economy, but how do you trust somebody who agrees to one thing, then starts to make up the rules as they go along ? Even the NAFTA panel has ruled against the US repeatedly... there has been talk we should sell more to China, at least they keep their word.
Don't think they give a shit
I'm with Signy and Rue
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
War is bad.
It's full of tortured children getting their fingers pulled off by raving lunatics in uniform, and this war is no different. The bulk of Americans already opposed the war 60% according the MSM and 80% according to the blogs. And this is after extensive campaigns by the whitehouse to make it more popular. Even if you think it's not enough, you can easily make the war unpopular by simply circulating the imagery of the war, torture, dead kids, rich oil companies.
Have you heard about the bonus oil? Oil companies are getting free oil from our govt. in Iraq. American oil companies. Are taking oil from Iraq, which they did not purchase, and they are not paying for it. I have a word for that. I call it theft. But this isn't just theft, it's state sponsored theft. I know what to call such a country. I think it's a rogue nation. That election was a cakewalk for any man with the balls to tell the truth and listen to the voices of the people. Kerry didn't want to win. Not enough, at least. I'm not mourning not having Kerry by any means, but I can't honestly say, now there's a guy who gave it his all. More like, there's a self important ivy league C-student twit who went as far as he could without losing his christmas bonus.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch,
On Canada, I wasn't expecting big news. I mean, if it ain't broke...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gin,
NAFTA is a commie plot. It's part of the neocon global domination conspiracy. Any time you see the words 'multinational union' read 'NWO conspiracy'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Kerry wanted to win, I'm just not so sure that Hillary's people wanted him to win. I disagree with your "team evil" idea because it's too grand aand overarching a conspiracy......that doesn't mean that there are not "forces at work" in both parties, I just dont think they collaborate.
I think that there were those in the Democratic party terrified that an antiwar canidate would be seen as an unpatriotic "move to the left" which would not just loose the party this election but put it in a weaker position come 2008. That was why the Clintons/DLC pushed Wesley Clarke so hard, because a failed Howard Dean run could weaken Hillary in 2008.
I don't think Dems would have done such a job of isolating Dean and Kosinich had they felt a peace platform was winable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think Kerry wanted to win, I'm just not so sure that Hillary's people wanted him to win. I disagree with your "team evil" idea because it's too grand aand overarching a conspiracy......that doesn't mean that there are not "forces at work" in both parties, I just dont think they collaborate.
Hmm. Interesting idea. It's possible. I can't peg Kerry down for team evil. He's S+B. So he's in to some degree, and he is often seen in team evil operations, like the filibuster of Alito, which is a solid team evil op. It has Hillary, Difi and Kerry all speaking out. When these guys work, they do it in style, they each make public statements, it's like a TE seal of approval. I think the goal of this filibuster is to force the nuclear option.
I'm not abandoning team evil, but you have over time made some good point. I prefer realism, small plots to grand conspiracies, because I think that's how the world works. I do have, have posted, what I think is overwhelming evidence of a collusion between certain members of the two parties. Over the last month Bush has dropped no fewer than half a dozen solid hints of co-conspiracy with Hillary. Just yesterday he said she was formidable, and that no republican could successfully oppose her senate '06 re-bid. I think that challenging her there would assist her defeat in '08.
I think Bush pretty clearly is setting the GOP for a fall here in '08. His advisors plan to become part of the Hillary admin. But TE exists in degrees, I would grant. I think there's a very small core. On the GOP Senate side, I might say Cornyn of TX and possibly Sessions of GA, maybe KBH of TX. But when you fan out from the center, the grasp gets less tight. Looking at this from a Joss point of view, these outer members are like Faith or Riley, they're not always in the secret meetings with Buffy, Giles, Willow. If there's a team slayer, there's definitely a degree of *in*.
Or in Angel, where at the end, Lindsay is so out that even when he thinks he in, he's well,
Select to view spoiler:
getting killed by Lorn
So too I suspect with TE. TE inner circle members themselves collude and conspire, but don't have enough raw power between them to get things done, so they need outside help. I think TE's main goal is to stay in power, and the agenda elements come from groups like PNAC who are dead set on their agendas. But sometimes these agendas may conflict with each other, it's a whole internal struggle.
But also, things change, people change, and someone once out could be in. McCain and Bush Sr. were once considered sworn enemies of TE, and now they might be tollerated allies. Apologies for the rant, I thought this gave me license to rant :) but no seriously I thought I'd take a chance to explain the way I think it works. I'm definitely not on a slant like pirate news of thinking this is all one arch conspiracy. But I do think we've acquired a powerful ring. Also, I think they are deliberately switching parties, something they have done before, but this time it's more deliberate than ever before. There's a certain smoothness to the transition. Things were much rockier going from Reagan to Clinton for the backers, the ideologues.
Quote:
I think that there were those in the Democratic party terrified that an antiwar canidate would be seen as an unpatriotic "move to the left" which would not just loose the party this election but put it in a weaker position come 2008. That was why the Clintons/DLC pushed Wesley Clarke so hard, because a failed Howard Dean run could weaken Hillary in 2008.
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. I think they viewed Dean as an outsider. Later, they gave him a seat at the table, and now he behaves. Plays hide the Salami. I agree that they viewed 2004 as a throw-away candidacy. I think that may have been because they had Bush, and he was good for 4 more years.
I want to stop and say that again. They had Bush. We're not talking about a group of people here who voted against or opposed Bush's policies. He was, to some extent, their guy. Whether they controlled him or no
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Kosinich could offer a peace alternative just because he WAS an outsider. The truth about politics is that there are always going to be the idealist/activist types and the political operators. Parties need activists, these are the folks that donate to party funds, get cold and wet putting up posters and standing on doorsteps. If you had to hire people at market rates to do this elections would be even more expensive. The operators in my opinion come in two types, those attracted to power and what they can use it for to benefit both their ideals and themselves --- the Tom DeLays if you like --- and the realists who understand that all the policies, theories and good intentions in the world mean nothiung unless you get elected and will do what they can to make that happen.
My belief is that the activist part of the Dems last election cycle was probably pro-peace which is why Kosinich and Dean managed big rallys and seemed to have a lot of grass roots backing. The Democratic leadership and the think tanks and institutes that support it however are political operators, they understood that with his current approval ratings no canidate they fielded on any platform would defeat Bush. Replacing the Executive in wartime? Never happened except by death of the encombant. If going in we had the current situation, DeLay stepped down Abramoff scandal, support for the war and the President's approval this low..... yes the operators could see a way to make that work, but I say again AT THE TIME it was not an option. That's why folks like Wesley Clarke showed up when they did to try and break up the peacenic faction amongst the activists and dilute Deans popularity.
And yes all of this is setup to 2008. I don't think Dems looked at Bush and thought "he's our guy, let's give him an easy ride" I just think the realists understood that with the approval numbers he had and with a war in progress the very best you could do is come respectably second.
Bush is a Republican problem. It may make you feel better to imagine he's some remote controlled liberal puppet but the truth is that his power base is in the GOP and that even when he's gone that influence is liable to continue. There is nothing inherent in the Republicans that say they have to be the party of conservatives, in fact they have had progressive flashes throughout their history, in Neoconism takes a grip in the party then conservatives will be faced with the same unpleasant choices that activist factions always have with "big tent" political parties, they can move outside and pitch their own tent and maintain their ideological purity, or they stay within the party and hope for better days. Going outside is suicide in my opinion if they want to keep the GOP conservative they have to fight for it's soul NOW.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My belief is that the activist part of the Dems last election cycle was probably pro-peace which is why Kosinich and Dean managed big rallys and seemed to have a lot of grass roots backing. The Democratic leadership and the think tanks and institutes that support it however are political operators, they understood that with his current approval ratings no canidate they fielded on any platform would defeat Bush.
I agree with the first part, but I don't think this was a pragmatic choice, I think it was an ideological one. The dems were so attached to the war that they would rather lose the election than the war.
Quote:
Replacing the Executive in wartime? Never happened except by death of the encombant.
This is just blatantly not so. Truman had tapped Adlai Stevenson to continue his administration's policies, but Stevenson lost to the oppositon, Dwight Eisenhower, in the middle of the Korean war, or what proved to be the end because Eisenhower was elected, but was by no means winding down.
Sixteen years later, Johnson failed to win his own primary while he was an incumbent president during the Vietnam war.
If we look back historically, James Cox, Wilson's chosen successor, lost to Warren G. Harding while the US was at war with Russia.
In two of these three instances, the election the republican resulted in the immediate termination of hostilities, and in the third it represented a marked reduction in total number combat exercises/civilian casualities and ultimately the termination of hostilities.
This is part of my problem with democrats. They *can't* call it quits on a war. They either continue fighting until they have the unconditional surrender of the enemy, or the war ends because a republican gets elected.
Quote:
That's why folks like Wesley Clarke showed up when they did to try and break up the peacenic faction amongst the activists and dilute Deans popularity.
This is an interesting idea. You could very well be right. Clarke's ties to Clinton are strong, and he is no man of peace.
Quote:
And yes all of this is setup to 2008. I don't think Dems looked at Bush and thought "he's our guy, let's give him an easy ride" I just think the realists understood that with the approval numbers he had and with a war in progress the very best you could do is come respectably second.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to imply that the democrats, collectively, said "He's our guy." I think the Clintonites, who number in maybe half a dozen, Clarke, Hillary, and people I call team evil democrat, I think thought of Bush as their guy. I don't think that they 'threw' the election totally, I think they would have rather won. They wanted Kerry in office. But, given a choice between losing the war or losing the presidency, they were unwilling to let go of the war. I actually cannot think of a historic precedent for a democrat letting go of a war.
Quote:
Bush is a Republican problem.
Not denying this. He's our bad.
Quote:
. It may make you feel better to imagine he's some remote controlled liberal puppet but the truth is that his power base is in the GOP and that even when he's gone that influence is liable to continue.
After the number of messages we've bounced on this board, you should know me better than this. I am far to pragmatic to let something like this happen to me. If I'm analyzing Bush as a left wing plant, it's not out of any effort to feel better. If I felt the core of the GOP was threatening to become this sort of thing, I'd just leave. It's through an effort to understand my opponent, Bush et. al, the neocons, that I *accidentally* stumbled on this information.
I was reading an article which contained the line "Neocons, who have been in the govt. for 30 years..." And suddenly it struck me. Where was I? I've been paying attention, and if these neocons were around for 30 years, why did I not hear the term until so recently?
Well, I wondered over to google and did a search on "coined term neocon." That returned the result "Michae
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME