• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justin Trudeau's home broken into while family slept

OTTAWA — Someone broke into Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's Ottawa home overnight Friday and left a threatening note while his family was sleeping.

Nothing was stolen from Trudeau's home in Rockcliffe Park — Ottawa's wealthiest neighbourhood — and nobody was harmed, but a threatening note was left behind

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/16/justin-trudeaus-home-broken-into-while-family-slept#

The price you pay for being a public fugure.

 
You would think someone of that stature, with that fancy a home, would have the place alarmed.

People with $125,000 homes do it.

Perhaps it's his unicorn belief that people like his intruder are just misunderstood and should have hung around for breakfast.

Then they could establish, the root causes of his misadventure. Then hire him for the election campaign.
 
It doesn't matter if his home was alarmed or he is a public figure.

He, his wife and his children are victims of a crime.

And the threatening note, or counting coup, doesn't help anybody - hopefully with the exception of the police.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen is, I suspect a very accurate assessment of Campaign 2014/15 ~ Trudeau! TRUDEAU!! TRUDEAU!!! and nothing but Trudeau:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-justin-trudeaus-political-style-a-phenomenon-to-watch
logo-green.png

The Gargoyle: Justin Trudeau's political style a phenomenon to watch

MARK KENNEDY

Published on: August 20, 2014

EDMONTON — In the age of the selfie, he is the political king.

They cluster around him. Mothers and fathers with children. Old men with canes. Teenagers with that star-struck look in their eyes.

Many of them carry cell-phone cameras, and as he approaches, they ask him to pose with them.

Justin Trudeau, the man who wants to be Canada’s prime minister of a majority Liberal government in 2015, never says no.

It’s part of a remarkable phenomenon that has been occurring for the past year or so throughout Canada at rallies, parades and barbeques.

And until you see it — as I did one evening this week in an Edmonton park that drew about 350 people for a Liberal rally — there’s no way to really comprehend how Trudeau is different from those who have come before him.

Sometime in 2015, Canadians will be asked to cast judgment on their party leaders in an election campaign.

Voters will be urged to make their decision on matters of substance — Which party has the best platform? Is it time for a change or for continuity? Which party leader do you trust most? Who is best equipped to lead Canada?

In making their decision, they will follow their head, their heart, and their gut instinct.

And like every campaign, voters will also be influenced by what they see of the leaders — on TV screens, and in newspaper and online photos.

It’s this unpredictable ingredient — the optics of campaigning — that could make the 2015 race so interesting.

Here’s why: Trudeau performs on the campaign trail unlike any of his rivals, or for that matter, his political predecessors of recent times.

Stephen Harper is an introvert who likes to give speeches during elections but who spends little time pressing the flesh in crowds and whose campaign events are tightly scripted.

Justin Trudeau is an extrovert who also delivers speeches, but also enjoys then wading into the crowds to meet people.

And it’s not just that he does it; it’s how he does it.

Trudeau embraces and hugs the strangers who have come to see him.

He smiles and laughs, or appears serious and concerned — depending on the conversation he’s engaged in.

He knows he’s a political celebrity so he poses for the selfies. Many times, when people nervously fumble to take the picture with their own camera, he takes it from their hands and takes the picture of the two of them together.

As a political walk-about, it takes forever. It’s not perfunctory. He walks very slowly and meets everyone who has their hand outstretched.

His handlers will be pulling their hair out in the next election over how he is putting their daily schedule behind time.

The Mounties who are attached to his campaign (every political leader gets security protection during an election) will have to get accustomed to his free-wheeling style.

And of course, media photographers will stay close to this moving photo-op.

It will be tailor-made for TV.

His critics will warn that this should not justify making him a credible candidate for the prime minister’s chair. There is more to the job than glad-handing, they will say.

But his supporters will say it’s Trudeau’s very ability to personally “connect” with Canadians he’s never met that makes him a leader suited for the times.

Former Liberal leader Stephane Dion was unable to do that when he led his party in the 2008 campaign — in part because of his own leadership failings, but also because of Conservative attack ads that savaged his reputation.

Next time, he predicts, Harper won’t have it so easy.

“There is a strong connection between Mr. Trudeau and the Canadian people. He has an incredible empathy with them.

“Canadians have a need for that, after so many years of a very removed leader who is very abrasive. Now they want a leader who is very close to them and has an open mind and is warm with people.”

That may prove to be true, or Trudeau’s approach to campaigning might fall flat with some voters who remain leery.

Either way, it’s a phenomenon worth watching.

Mark Kennedy is right, "Voters will be urged to make their decision on matters of substance — Which party has the best platform? Is it time for a change or for continuity? Which party leader do you trust most? Who is best equipped to lead Canada?" But: if history is a good guide Canadians will vote with either their wallets or their hearts. IF they vote with their wallets then Prime Minister Harper and his Conservatives have a chance but if, as I suspect they will, Canadians vote with their hearts then M. Trudeau will be our Prime Minister in 2015.

Prime Minister Harper will, I fear fall victim to:

    1. His own success ~ the economy is improving, there are few really dark clouds on the horizon, business and consumers are starting to display a bit more optimism. There is, in short, no compelling reason to vote for Stephen Harper.
        There is no economic nincompoop like Stéphane Dion against whom he can run, nor is there is "just visiting" dilettante like Michael Ignatief; there is a genuinely "likable" celebrity who, evidently appeals to a shallow, celebrity
        obsessed, unthinking populace. (And yes, I know I'm "dissing" my fellow citizens but I am firmly persuaded that 75% of Canadians (which number probably includes some of you) are shallow and celebrity obsessed, abysmally
        ignorant and have the attention spans of fruit flies.)

    2. A well crafted, "tailor-made for TV," Liberal campaign that will be short on specifics - hard to attack - and loooooooong on sex appeal.
 
I think that Mr. Harper will fall, period.  I can't speak for other parts of this country, but here in the Maritimes I don't hear one word amongst the masses that approve of him.  Trudeaumania will rule once again and the kid will be the "King of the Hill".  Mulcair will as your cartoon of earlier suggest, ER, be unable to get his message out.  I'm going to find it curious how many of the present big names of the CPC survive past next year.  I think it will look like the aftermath of Agincourt, on the French side.
 
Playwrights say there are only seven or eight plot lines.  I've seen each one of them at least twice......

I don't want to go to this one again.
 
John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Sean Lennon.

Pierre Trudeau, Margaret Sinclair, Justin Trudeau.

Go Canada.
 
The problems with even discussing foreign affairs in an electoral setting become evident in this story about Andrew Leslie being 'bushwhacked' by a CPC staffer in a public 'roundtable.' Many years ago Prime Minister Kim Campbell was excoriated for suggesting that the campaign trail was, in fact, a poor place to discuss policy; I'm guess that LGen (Ret'd) Leslie agrees with her. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Sun News is the story:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/09/20140902-231532.html
Top Trudeau adviser breaks ranks, blames Israel for civilian deaths

DAVID AKIN | NATIONAL BUREAU CHIEF

September 3rd, 2014

OTTAWA - A retired Canadian general who hopes to be elected as a Liberal MP next year believes Israel's military forces fired "indiscriminately" on Palestinian women and children in the recent Hamas-Israel conflict.

"Casualties are caused by the Israelis using very heavy weapons systems, firing indiscriminately onto Palestinian women and children," Andrew Leslie said at an event on Aug. 19.

Leslie, who plays a key role as co-chair of a group of international affairs advisers to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, made the comment as part of an extended response to questions from a woman who attended a roundtable on veterans issues he hosted in Ottawa-Orleans, the riding in which he hopes to become the next Liberal candidate.

Liberals say the woman who asked the questions is a Conservative political staffer, Alexandra Constantinidis.

Sun News Network was provided late last week with a recording the woman made of her conversation and, on Tuesday, Leslie provided his own transcript of the conversation. Leslie's transcript and the woman's recording match.

Leslie is first asked, "what your professional opinion would be on the conflict with Israel. Where would you recommend us standing? What would you do troop-wise? Which side would you support, if any?"

Leslie started off by saying every nation has the right to defend itself and his remarks should be seen in that context. "Keep that as a thought bubble."

A few minutes later, though, he criticizes the Israeli government for strategic failures and the Israel Defence Forces for killing Palestinian civilians.

"The Palestinian people are not the enemy. Hamas, absolutely.

"You're talking to a guy who has hunted terrorists for quite some time. You gotta kill them? You gotta kill them. Hey, I've got no problems with that. But Palestinian women and children who are taking refuge in UN-designated compounds? Come on. 'Oh, it was an accident.' Sorry doesn't matter to anyone. Shooting dumb artillery close to children is dumb."

On Tuesday, Leslie said: "The totality of my comments are balanced and I have nothing additional to add."

But in saying the IDF fired "indiscriminately" on civilians, Leslie put himself outside the mainstream opinion of Canada's federal political class.

So far, the judgments of Trudeau, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair have been similar in the sense that all three have expressed concern, regret or alarm at civilian deaths but no party leader has suggested, as Leslie did, that the IDF or the government of Israel was culpable.

Trudeau was travelling in eastern Quebec Tuesday and wasn't available for comment.

Leslie's conclusion that the IDF had little regard for women and children would also be at odds with a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan. In mid-July, after visiting Israel, retired colonel Richard Kemp said: "I believe that on the basis of everything that I've seen, that everything the IDF does to protect civilians and to stop the death of innocent civilians is a great deal more than any other army, and it's more than the British and the American armies."

Leslie also said he believes Israel failed to attain its strategic objectives in the military conflict because, in his view, world opinion turned against Israel because of civilian deaths in Gaza.

"You know what the body count is now. So Israel has actually lost this war," Leslie said. "So if I were advising the Israeli prime minister I would say don't send any ground troops until you really really need to."

And even though Leslie's interlocutor was a woman the Liberals identified as a Conservative staffer, Leslie concluded the five-minute conversation by congratulating her for her "knack for asking really complicated questions, but that's good!"

A government directory lists Constantinidis as the Parliament Hill assistant for Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders. Attempts to reach Constantinidis Tuesday were unsuccessful.

NOTE: In the interest of accuracy, a full transcript is available here.



First, and it's important: there is nothing wrong with party workers from one party questioning candidates/representatives of another party. It is an old custom, I recall it well from the days (early 1960s) when Prime Minister Pearson set his party's "truth squads" - led by the unforgettable Judy Lamarsh - on Prime Minister Diefenbaker to harass him, and PC candidates, over the muddle that was 'Dief the Chief's' nuclear weapons policy.

judy-lamarsh-08.jpg


Second, and it's also important: Andrew Leslie did NOT say Israel intentionally targetted civilians. What he did say was, "Shooting dumb [unguided] artillery close to children is dumb."

But the Conservatives are going to use this, out of context, just as the Liberals did to John Diefenbaker 50+ years ago ... oh, and just as the Liberals did in 2006.


 
ERC:
Second, and it's also important: Andrew Leslie did NOT say Israel intentionally targetted civilians. What he did say was, "Shooting dumb [unguided] artillery close to children is dumb."

Sun News report above:

But in saying the IDF fired "indiscriminately" on civilians, Leslie put himself outside the mainstream opinion of Canada's federal political class.

What is the difference between intentionally and indiscriminately in the context of the IDF fighting Hamas in populated areas? Using civilians as shields.
 
I included a link to the transcript of Leslie's remarks ... maybe my eyes are tired, but I don't see "indiscriminate" anywhere.

LGen (Rt'd) Leslie's use of the word "dumb" refers, I'm 99.99% sure, to unguided artillery - i.e. not using something like e.g. the Excalibur GPS-guided munition - which, I suppose, one might interpret as indiscriminate ... or not.
 
Woman: I was just wondering what your professional opinion would be on the conflict with Israel. Where would you recommend us standing? What would you do troop-wise? Which side would you support, if any?

Leslie: So, every nation has the right to defend itself. Every nation has the right to defend its people. So keep that as a thought bubble.
Then there’s this little Chinese gentleman about 2,700 years ago who said, in Cantonese: ‘Never do what your enemy wants you to do.’ So, just keep that as a thought bubble . His name was Sun Tzu.
So what does Hamas – who’s actually guided and directed by [whos has] funding and the leadership provided mainly by Iran and Syria – what did they want Israel to do? They want Israel to, essentially, fall into the trap of igniting world opinion against them, by killing civilians.
So, if you know that — and the Israeli Army and the political system are quite astute, because they’ve had to live in that awful part of the world for quite some time, so they know what’s going on — don’t do what your enemy wants you to do.
So, Hamas launches rockets attacks. Up until the moment the Israeli ground forces launch their invasion there had been three fatalities after 2,700 rockets have been fired at Israel, because they have a system to knock them down.
So, tunnels [in Gaza] were not an issue at the time. They go in, they obviously get involved in the street fighting.
Hamas throws more and more resources at it and more casualties are caused by the Israelis using very heavy weapons systems, firing indiscriminately onto Palestinian women and children.
You know what the body count is now. So Israel has actually lost this war.
Because it’s not… all warfare is a continuation of the political dialogue by other means. There’s a guy called Clausewitz…
So if I were advising the Israeli Prime Minister I would say ‘don’t send any ground troops until you really really need to. Because you are just going to do that what your enemy wants you to do.
 
Thanks, Rifleman62, I missed that ... I'm glad for David Akin, a journalist I do respect, that he (or the Sun News editors) didn't put words in LGen (Ret'd) Leslie's mouth.

(I would not have said that the Israelis were "firing indiscriminately onto Palestinian women and children," but I would have agreed had he said that the Israelis were using the wrong weapons for 'work' that requires great accuracy (discrimination).)
 
>"Shooting dumb [unguided] artillery close to children is dumb."

They just use a different calculator for proportionality, General.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The problems with even discussing foreign affairs in an electoral setting become evident in this story about Andrew Leslie being 'bushwhacked' by a CPC staffer in a public 'roundtable' ...
...
... there is nothing wrong with party workers from one party questioning candidates/representatives of another party. It is an old custom, I recall it well from the days (early 1960s) when Prime Minister Pearson set his party's "truth squads" - led by the unforgettable Judy Lamarsh - on Prime Minister Diefenbaker to harass him, and PC candidates, over the muddle that was 'Dief the Chief's' nuclear weapons policy.
...
But the Conservatives are going to use this, out of context, just as the Liberals did to John Diefenbaker 50+ years ago ... oh, and just as the Liberals did in 2006.


The Liberals, in the person of Ralph Goodale are first out of the gate, branding this as "Nixonian" and as "designed to “impose a chill” on candid political discourse."

But, there was no mention, in the CP article of the 1960s "truth squads."
 
There is a report in report in the Globe and mail saying that Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair promises to unveil his platform a full year ahead of the next election.

    “Canadians want to know where we stand and they’re going to have a very clear idea,” Mulcair told The Canadian Press. “And they want more from us than, frankly, talking points, platitudes or partisan attacks.” Mulcair went on,
      suggesting that, in one ay, he agrees with former Prime Minister Kim Campbell, that, “One of the things that often frustrates me as a voter is when you find out right in the middle of a campaign that they’ve got this, that and
      the other idea. You don’t really have time to think about it, to measure it or to look at how it could help improve people’s lives.”

 
Not a Conservative/Liberal Majority, but in 2015 I like to see a coalition government consists and govern by all major parties. Too many years for the current prime minister & there should be a new head for Canada in 2015.
 
And how will a coalition government help?

The outcome may be a NDP/Liberal coalition (with the NDP in the driver seat). What part of the NDP party platform or vision for Canada do you see as being beneficial for Canadians as a whole, or for the CF in general (since most of us are in the CF)?

You do understand that the NDP do not have a responsible economic platform, and their positions on international maters can be best described as "naive" (although the best way to understand the NDP position is to go to the Socialist International website, since the Canadian party belongs to the SI, and mirrors much of the SI position).

The Liberals, being a "Transactive" party, have no position on anything, but will simply sell their position to the highest bidder. We already see how well "crony capitalism" is working in the States and in Ontario, so extend that vision to cover all of Canada, including the current engines of Confederation: Alberta and Saskatchewan.

As for PM Harper, I suspect he will want to fight this election and be able to retire on his own time with the Young Dauphin's scalp under his belt, grooming a new CPC leader for 2019.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top