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

The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

Like many members here at Army.ca, I have taken the view that we accepted the commitment to Afghanistan and we need to see the job through to its proper conclusion. But, what’s proper? We stayed in Cyprus for something like 30 years – but with very light casualties. Shall we stay in Afghanistan for 20 and take, what, 300 dead and thousands more wounded? To what end?

The Government of Canada has, just recently, offered some Priorities “for the next three years.” But they are, to be charitable, a bit loose.

But, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is an election promise that says “we’re outta here” in 2011:

Harper ups the Afghanistan ante

STEVEN CHASE

Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press
September 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM EDT

TORONTO — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is vowing his government would completely withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan in 2011 -- a promise that goes beyond a Parliamentary motion this year which merely committed to pull soldiers out of Kandahar province.

Military analysts have warned it's a bad idea strategically to set a definite end date for withdrawing from Afghanistan but Mr. Harper says he thinks even the Canadian military wants to quit the country in 2011.

The statement is a change for Mr. Harper, who had acknowledged in April that it was possible down the road that Canada's NATO allies might ask Ottawa to extend its Afghan commitment beyond 2011.

The March 13 2008 resolution, backed by both the Conservatives and Liberals, said: “The government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, add, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011.”

Mr. Harper said the Canadian public has no appetite to keep soldiers in the war-torn country any longer than the pullout date already agreed upon by Parliament.

“You have to put an end date on these things,” Mr. Harper told reporters during a breakfast briefing. “We intend to end it.”

The Afghan government will at some point have to go it alone, he said, whether it's ready or not. Development assistance for the war-torn country will continue, he added, and a relative handful of troops would likely stay behind to offer technical support to those coalition countries that remain.

The Conservative Leader's statement comes as the death toll for Canadians in Afghanistan approaches 100, and as the Taliban warn they plan to step up attacks during the election campaign.

 
Sadly, a combination of public ignorance and partisan politics will decide the fate of the mission (as well as potentially Afghanistan and the entire central Asian region). If anyone cared to examine the facts, they would conclude the true end date for our mission should be no earlier than 2015: the year the six million children who started going to school in 2005 begin graduating. Only when a large pool of educated people start entering Afghan business, politics and the military will the nation really be able to stand on its own.

Of course, simply walking away in 2015 won't cut it either, that is the start year for truly rebuilding and reforming Afghanistan from within. Our Field Force might not be needed beyond 2015 (and indeed if the ANA continues its really impressive gains the mission of the Field Force could be scaled back in 2011). Alas, Kim Campbell was right in suggesting an election campaign isn't the time to discuss issues. Sadly, there are no other good times to carry out the discussion in Canada.
 
Harper, Layton back down from blocking May
Updated Wed. Sep. 10 2008 3:07 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Jack Layton have both reversed their opposition to Green Leader Elizabeth May's participation in the leaders' debates.

Layton was the first to back away from his previous position, saying he didn't want to keep "debating about the debate."

"As long as Stephen Harper takes part, I don't care who else is on the stage," he said Wednesday afternoon on his campaign bus.

Less than an hour later, Conservative representatives informed reporters that the Tories would not stand alone against May's inclusion.

The five networks in the consortium -- CTV, CBC, Radio-Canada, Global and TVA -- said May was excluded because some leaders threatened to boycott the debate if she was allowed to participate.

Both Harper and Layton had previously said May shouldn't be included because the Green leader has repeatedly said she would prefer Dion win the election instead of Harper.

May said Wednesday now that only one leader opposes her inclusion in the debate, there is no reason to exclude her.

Some commentators also argue that May should first have an elected MP before she's allowed into the debates.

Both Harper and Layton have said the decision was ultimately made by the consortium.

On Wednesday, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion accused the opposition leaders of "hiding themselves" behind the consortium.

"I cannot accept that Mr. Harper, Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe decided that Madame May will not be there," Dion said Wednesday during a news conference in Mississauga, Ont., about women's participation in politics.

He said he will seek an explanation from the consortium about the decision.
More on link
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is a comment by former CBC big-wig Tony Burman:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.wburman0910/BNStory/politics
Former CBC News chief: The election debate process is a sham

TONY BURMAN

Globe and Mail Update
September 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM EDT

Prime Minister Harper's refusal to allow the Green Party leader to participate in the Federal Election Debates is cynical and self-serving, but at least it exposes the sham that Canada's election debate process has become.

After 40 years of relying on Canada's television networks to organize this important event, I believe it is time for Canadians – through the CRTC – to pull the plug on the networks and entrust this vital mission to an independent, non-partisan ‘commission' similar to how it is done in the U.S.

This certainly is a change of position for me. Between 2000 and 2007, as editor-in-chief of CBC News, I was the chair of the fabled “network consortium” that organized the election debates for Canada's last three elections – 2000, 2004 and 2006 – and wrestled with a multitude of issues to make these debates more effective.

In 2006, we discussed the issue of whether the Green Party leader – Jim Harris at the time – should be allowed in the debate, and we decided against it. Although the rules have shifted over time since Canada's first election debate in 1968, the most accepted criteria requires that a political party needs to have representation in the House of Commons as well as proven popular support in the country – which we interpreted to be at least 5 per cent of popular vote reflected in the polls. The Green Party of 2006 had neither.

Early last year, as Canada's new Conservative minority government was under attack in the Commons, I called the networks together to quietly discuss the format of the next debates in case a sudden election became necessary. We invited Ms. May and her senior colleagues to make their case to us.

After they left, the networks privately debated the issue. We never actually reached an agreement that day, although all of the networks were sympathetic to the ‘public service' dimension of the Greens' case. Some networks worried that adding a fifth leader would make the debate "unwatchable" but we all knew that the elephant in the room was actually living at 24 Sussex Drive. And he – the Prime Minister – would effectively have veto power. Within days of the meeting, we were privately told by the Conservative Party representative that Prime Minister Harper would not participate in the debates if the Green Party leader was there.

That was in early 2007. So it's not surprising how it has turned out for this 2008 election – even though the Green Party now has a member in the House of Commons and is averaging between 7 and 10 per cent in national opinion polls.

And therein lies the fatal flaw in Canada's election debate process.

The CRTC and federal courts have reaffirmed the networks' right to ‘produce' this broadcast on their own, without any outside interference. And this is certainly the claim of the networks – including by me when I chaired the ‘consortium' for those seven years. But in reality, the government in power has a veto, and without the Prime Minister's participation, the debate won't happen.

In this instance, I wish the networks had made all of this public by threatening to walk away as a means of mobilizing public pressure.

Furthermore, what makes this year's pattern even worse is that the networks and parties have abandoned the change I introduced in 2006 of adding a second debate (or two extra, if you include French and English.) Like many people, I felt it was absurd that the complexity of a federal election in Canada was reduced to two hours of debating time. In addition, as if to ensure that Canada's debate this time is truly irrelevant, they have scheduled the English-language event for October 2, the same evening as the U.S. vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

This is serious business. An election is intended to protect the heartbeat of a democracy, and a televised leaders' debate is the only opportunity to see them together on the same stage. I think it's high time for an independent, non-partisan commission to step in and urgently provide remedial action.

In the U.S., the “Commission on Presidential Debates”, created in 1987, has come up with a far more illuminating model. The two presidential candidates appear for six hours in three debates, including one devoted solely to world affairs. And this is all accomplished within 29 days, which is a week less than the Canadian election campaign.

Political experts in the United States and Canada are uncertain about how their elections will turn out this autumn, except for two things.

It is more than likely that voter turnout in the U.S. will be a record high, and the turnout in Canada will be a record low.

Does this actually surprise anyone?

Tony Burman is Managing Director of Al Jazeera's English-language news channel based in Doha, Qatar – where he reports it is 45 degrees Celsius and sunny.

I disagree with Burman. We should have a totally ad hoc system, devoid of regulation by anyone, including the CRTC. The parties, themselves, and the networks, individually or collectively in each case, as they see fit, should negotiate, each with the others re: number of debates, who’s in (and not), when, where and so on. The matter is urgent once a campaign starts: reasonable people can and will come to sensible agreements quickly. We have quite enough busybodies in Ottawa managing things that are best left alone.

 
The campaign heated up a bit in Québec today, according to his article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright ct from today’s Globe and mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.welxnbloc0910/BNStory/politics/home
Bloc accused of being NDP clone

DANIEL LEBLANC and OMAR EL AKKAD AND GLORIA GALLOWAY

Globe and Mail Update
September 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM EDT

SHERBROOKE, Que. and OTTAWA — The Bloc Québécois came under both friendly- and enemy-fire today, placing the opposition party on the defensive for the first time in the campaign.

On the friendly-fire side, a senior separatist tore into the Bloc campaign as an unappealing, left-wing clone of the NDP. Jacques Brassard, a former Parti Québécois minister on the provincial stage, launched his tirade in a Montreal newspaper, arguing that the Bloc is losing touch with a number of Quebeckers.

“The Bloc Québécois is turning into a clone of the NDP, with the issue of sovereignty on the backburner,” Mr. Brassard was quoted as saying in La Presse.

“They have adopted a left-wing discourse, with all the themes of the left. I'm sorry, but that is not appealing to me. I don't recognize myself in that party,” he said.

On the enemy-fire side, the Conservative Party increased its attacks on the Bloc by pointing out that it has made over 1,000 promises since 1990.

“This election is a time of reckoning for Gilles Duceppe and his colleagues,” said Conservative candidate and former senator Michael Fortier at a news conference.

Mr. Fortier said the Bloc has wasted 18 years in the House as it achieved no real results, spearheaded no major projects and created no employment.

“The only jobs that Bloc MPs have created in 18 years are their own,” he said.

“A vote on the Bloc is a wasted vote – Quebeckers are already realizing the Bloc can't deliver, and are already turning their back on this powerless party,” he said.

Speaking in Sherbrooke, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe rejected the allegation that he is turning his back on small-c conservatives, as stated by Mr. Brassard.

Instead of calling himself left- or right-wing, Mr. Duceppe said the Bloc is pragmatic, progressive and democratic.

“I don't want to get involved in a battle over labels,” he said.

Mr. Duceppe added that he also raises the issue of sovereignty in all of his speeches, and that his job in Ottawa is to bring issues that are part of a consensus in Quebec, such as support for the Kyoto Accord.

At a campaign event in Oshawa, Ont., NDP Leader Jack Layton said Mr. Brassard is not prone to complimenting New Democrats

“He is someone who doesn't seem to agree with a lot of progressive policies,” said Mr. Layton.

“But, you know, I think the values of the NDP really come very close to the great majority of Quebeckers. As the first NDP leader born and raised in Quebec, I feel this very intensely and I've always thought that there should be more of a connection. And that's why I have worked so hard to build our team in Quebec.”

The Conservatives have sensed an opportunity in Quebec, where the Bloc is struggling in many parts of the province. The Tories are pushing hard to make gains there, but Mr. Fortier would not say how many seats he thinks the Conservatives can win in Quebec.

This is the third day in a row that the Conservatives have used their daily morning briefing to attack another party or its leader. The past two days, Conservatives have focused on Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

CBC reports that Brassard’s comments went somewhat further. He appears to be suggesting that the BQ does not (adequately?) reflect Québec’s interests.

Good news for Harper ... maybe good news for Layton, too: if the Bloc is just an NDP clone (but you are a loony lefty) then why not vote for the real thing?



 
Well, I'm really disappointed with Harper for this announcement.

I guess no party is pro-mission now...
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I disagree with Burman. We should have a totally ad hoc system, devoid of regulation by anyone, including the CRTC. The parties, themselves, and the networks, individually or collectively in each case, as they see fit, should negotiate, each with the others re: number of debates, who’s in (and not), when, where and so on. The matter is urgent once a campaign starts: reasonable people can and will come to sensible agreements quickly. We have quite enough busybodies in Ottawa managing things that are best left alone.

While I agree with you in principle, the stakes are so high that political parties will do everything possible to wargame the system(s) to their advantage. Note for example that Senator Obama will not debate Senator McCain in informal "town hall" type debates during the campaign since Senator McCain can easily connect with viewers in a town hall while Senator Obama makes carefully scripted performances in large venues (whenever Senator Obama is away from the Teleprompter he is prone to make gaffes).

Informal and ad hoc debates are fine, but a clear venue that is not under the control of the political parties is also important to avoid the problems of war gaming. IF a party leader refuses to debate in this forum, the conveners should say "fine" and go ahead with everyone else....
 
I thought we had a forum for debate.  Some place up there on the Rideau?
 
Kirkhill said:
I thought we had a forum for debate.  Some place up there on the Rideau?

Unfortunately debates seldom occur there as the place is usually overrun by people resembling selfish and spoiled children (children who would be expelled from any school for like behaviour).
 
I dunno Vern...At least in Ontario, school discipline can be sorely lacking.  I was assaulted with a weapon in halls during one of my years in Highschool and the offender got a twenty day suspension.
Then a month later he was caught drunk at school (and with alcohol in his backpack) and again, a twenty day suspension.

We have MPs that sit in the house on a less regular basis than that kid got suspensions.
I wish there were more regular debates there, but sadly there is too much of:
Sir #1 "you're a bad leader"
Sir #2 "Oh  yeah? Well you're fat"

So I agree, but you're giving the school system too much credit.    :D
 
Remember, please, that the National Post has a pretty strong and clear political position (as does e.g. the Toronto Star) and it is not favourable to Stéphane Dion. But, Don Martin has always appeared to me to be a fairly even handed political commentator. His most recent report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, paints a pretty bleak picture of Dion’s campaign thus far:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/10/don-martin-liberals-campaign-almost-falling-down-on-the-job.aspx
Don Martin: Liberal campaign almost falling down on the job

WALKERTON, Ont.  — There’s a dizzy falling-down-the-rabbit-hole sensation to riding with Liberal leader Stephane Dion as his four-day-old tour finally defied gravity aboard a generation-old jet heading into Atlantic Canada.


It’s almost as if the leader is a liability the campaign is trying to hide as the buses move from ridings that are impossible to win to safe seats where he makes announcements that simply don’t make strategic sense.


His good days, er, hours have been limited to Conservative backroom hiccups that had nothing to do with invigorated Liberal ideas or his new macho image as a floor hockey and fishing enthusiast. And that pooping puffin attack ad is now being seen as a one-time gift that risks becoming a memory-sticking defining Dion image.


The unveiling of the Liberal’s meat safety policy in a Walkerton high school is a classic example of an outbreak of vertigo, which suggests the U2-borrowed campaign theme song Vertigo is appropriate and shouldn’t be scrubbed as planned.


It was a great crowd of 1,000, unfortunately non-voting teens, that was arguably larger than the combined turnout of Dion’s entire rally and riding office pitstop tour so far.


But a teacher pulled me aside after Mr. Dion’s talk to confide that Walkerton students are sick of being poster kids for poison products in the aftermath of the killer e. coli contaminated water disaster of 2000.


That’s why local reporters, who had been told Mr. Dion would limit his speech to his Green Shift carbon tax plan, winced when told it was a product safety announcement. Walkerton’s water supply is a tragedy kids and parents alike would rather forget and Dion’s media parade merely refreshed the stigma for national consumption.


The infamous blue Walkerton water tower, visible from the school’s front steps, might’ve been an appropriate photo-op backdrop, but I’m sure one student spoke for the many when all she wanted to know from Dion was how the Liberals would help a struggling single parent family pay for her tuition next year.


Wait, the leader said, that announcement is scheduled for Thursday in Saint John. Not in a high school? Huh?


But that wasn’t the only missed opportunity on Wednesday.


In what could’ve been a triumph of political brinkmanship over the bully antics of  Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who had blocked Green Party Elizabeth May’s obvious right to participate in the leaders’ debate, Mr. Dion had meekly refused to boycott the event, even though he argued her vetoed participation was an affront to democracy.


Had he done so, Harper’s capitulation on Wednesday could’ve framed Mr. Dion as a hero to women and advocate of free-speech. But without a defiant principled Liberal position, the flip-flop is merely a political bow to public pressure.


Speaking of women, Wednesday also featured a round table to celebrate the Liberal’s very strong team of articulate Toronto area women, including two would-be leaders of the future. It was a golden opportunity to attack a Conservative cabinet that marginalizes women and a party lineup lacking quality candidates.


But instead of attacking that record or listening to his candidates, Dion hogged the microphone to deliver a pandering talk on women in the home and raising kids while insisting enforced gender parity should apply to the Senate, Crown corporations and throughout government.


Yes, he deserves credit for delivering a key promise to have one-third of his national team women. Equal Voice, an action group dedicated to electing more women, notes approvingly that 36 per cent of the Liberal candidates are women, 26 per cent of them in ridings considered winnable in this election.


But behind every defeated female candidate will be a failed national leader, so Mr. Dion had best pull up his campaign socks and get people excited about his mission or his candidate quota won’t matter one iota.


Trouble is obviously afoot on other fronts.


In the Greater Toronto Area fortress for the Liberal party, a major rally that MPs were told would happen this week was inexplicably scrubbed. Thus, Dion left the city without a sendoff hug from his star candidates. 


Behind the scenes, sources say the Liberal party will quietly cancel its December convention in Vancouver, clearing the decks for a leadership convention next year if this tour continues evolving into a funeral procession.


The Liberal leader’s strategy so far is the classic sign of a party coasting on a lead.


Someone should let Mr. Dion know that some polls have him a distant second place to the Conservatives and flirting dangerously close to New Democrat Jack Layton for the right to be runner-up.


The Liberal right-to-life campaign to make this election relevant had better start soon. 


dmartin@nationalpost

This may be good news for the Conservatives but it may be even better news for the Liberals.

The Liberal Party of Canada is a formidable organization – full of skilled, even ruthless campaigners who hate to lose. This may be the wakeup call they need to revamp the campaign. As others have said about the Clintons: don’t turn your back on the Liberals until they are dead, buried and a stake has been driven through their hearts. They don’t carry the descriptor ”Canada's natural governing party” for nothing.

 

 
Despite Goldfarb’s deep, deep Liberal roots, I think there is a lot of truth in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.welxngoldfarb0910/BNStory/politics
How to beat Stephen Harper

MARTIN GOLDFARB

Globe and Mail Update
September 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM EDT

Branding principles clearly suggest Stephen Harper is vulnerable and can be beaten.

The traditional marketing purchase funnel includes two basic principles – knowledge and liking. Both are fundamental in helping people make up their minds.

This funnel clearly applies to voting as well. Often people like a product before they know a lot about it; they fall in love with it virtually at first sight. In the car world, the old Mustang or the new Mini are products in this category. Other times people need to know a lot about it; that is, acquire a great deal of knowledge before they develop affinity to the product. Hybrid vehicles are good examples.

But sometimes, the more people know about the product, the less they are likely to buy it. Today, Chrysler and Ford cars fall into this unhappy zone. So does Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, which was briefly all the rage in Canada until consumers got to know the product.

This is also the case for Mr. Harper: Voters know he is clever, but they don't like the way he thinks. He may want to be Tim Horton's, but the Liberals can easily cast him as the Krispy Kreme of Canadian politics. The more people know, the less they like.

In contrast, the Liberal brand, for the most part, is well-liked. People understand the values and standards that the Liberals believe in and accept them as consistent with their Canadian identity. There is a deep-seated comfort level with Liberal thinking. Canadians identify Liberals as the party of old-aged pensions, the flag, medicare, getting the state out of the bedrooms of the nation, a strong central government and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are the things the Liberals have stood for over many decades. People almost equate Liberal thinking over time with Canadian thinking.

There is a reason for this – the Liberals enjoy the advantage of having governed Canada for most of the last century. The Conservative brand pales by comparison and usually succeeds only because of the right leader at the right time.

Now, why do Canadians feel uncomfortable with Mr. Harper? From his gung-ho commitment (until Wednesday) to Afghanistan to his one-time desire to fight in Iraq; from his legal battle with Elections Canada to his firing of an inconvenient nuclear inspector; from breaking the spirit of the election law he introduced to Parliament to his flirtation with anti-choice, he makes people twitchy and nervous. They may respect his intelligence but, by and large, they do not identify with his beliefs. They feel they don't truly know what he would do next if given a majority.

The fact that the Conservatives are running lovable and fuzzy ads about Mr. Harper suggests they, too, know that people still don't like him. In trying to build long-term brand commitment, Mr. Harper fails this fundamental test. What he believes and stands for in fact does not resonate with the average Canadian voter. His personal brand is not strong enough to counter the Liberal advantage, assuming Mr. Dion play his cards right.

Mr. Dion must come to understand that the Liberal Party is the brand – he simply occupies a chair. The Liberal Party is not an underdog to the Conservative Party. From a branding perspective, this election pits the Liberal Party against Mr. Harper. The more you know about the Liberal Party, the more potential there is that voters will like it. The trick is to tell the public more about Mr. Harper and more about the Liberals (but not the leader).

Leadership is the ability to create followers. In this simple definition, Mr. Dion hasn't succeeded in convincing most Canadians that his central idea – the Green Shift – is relevant or can be implemented. The secret of good marketing is credibility of implementation. There is no clear understanding of how the Green Shift will or can work. The results of the last three months indicate that Mr. Dion hasn't generated the personal affinity necessary for him to sell this leap of faith.

From a branding perspective, Mr. Dion needs to understand he is not the best agent to build support for the Liberal Party. His popularity and acceptance ratings by Canadians run behind the party. It is the party that must reinforce the strength of Liberal ideals, largely through advertising. By stressing the things that the Liberal Party has been and will be committed to, and placing them in the context of the party's established brand promise – progressive, inclusive, socially and economically balanced, standing for a united Canada – one finds the route to success.

Mr. Harper has to be positioned in the contrasting position as not representing the best interests of Canadians. It is the Liberal Party that positions Mr. Harper this way – not Mr. Dion. It does so through what some call negative advertising, reminding voters of the things they dislike about Mr. Harper. The leader's job in this is simply to stand back and let the professionals do their job by unleashing the party to aggressively challenge Mr. Harper. Mr. Dion must be prepared to take a personal position that isn't front and centre in this election.

So the Liberals must do two things to win this election. One, remember that the more Canadians know Mr. Harper the less they like him, and therefore remind people about him. And two, put forward Liberal ideas that build affinity with Canadians and provide a contrast to the ideas associated with the Conservative leader.

Martin Goldfarb is a marketing expert, and was the pollster for Pierre Trudeau

Much as it pains a highly partisan Tory like me to say, the Liberal ‘brand’ is well liked and respected in Canada. That’s a huge advantage which, thus far it appears to me, the Liberals have failed to exploit. I don’t expect them to keep making the same mistake.

For now Harper is running ahead of the Conservative ‘brand’ and he will have to do that for the whole campaign because he is the best thing the Tories have in 2008 – even if Canadians do not like him they do respect him and his judgement. He needs to keep telling us that he is safe and secure and Dion is a reckless, untested choice for worrisome times.

 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is evidence of another Tory PR blunder:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnsparrow0911/BNStory/politics/home
Senior Tory spokesman suspended

STEVEN CHASE

Globe and Mail Update
September 11, 2008 at 12:17 PM EDT

MONTREAL — Senior Conservative Party spokesman Ryan Sparrow has been suspended from the campaign after suggesting the father of a slain soldier who criticized Stephen Harper today was a Liberal.

Mr. Sparrow sent an email to CTV News today suggesting that Jim Davis, the soldier's dad, is a supporter of Liberal incumbent Michael Ignatieff.

He has also been ordered to call Mr. Davis and apologize for his comments.

Tory Senator Marjory LeBreton, a national campaign co-chair, said there's no excuse for Mr. Sparrow's behaviour.

"When a family suffers the loss of a loved one, it's a tragedy beyond belief ... and politics should never enter into it," she said.

Ms. LeBreton said Mr. Davis' criticism today was justified comment. "It's entirely appropriate thing for him to say because he lost his son."

Mr. Harper was forced to defend his decision announced Wednesday to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan in 2011 in the face of criticism from Mr. Davis, whose son Corporal Paul Davis died in Kandahar in March 2006.

He told CTV's Canada AM he was shocked by Mr. Harper's comments. He said his son will have died in vain if Canada withdraws before its mission is complete.

"I couldn't believe he would say something so irresponsible as that," Mr. Davis told CTV.

Mr. Davis setting a deadline "undermines the work our soldiers are doing and it undermines the mission."

Mr. Harper said he “doesn't accept” the notion Cpl. Davis will have died in vain and said Canada is determined to pull out by 2011 because by that time it will have had soldiers deployed in the deadly province of Kandahar for six years.

“Six years in Kandahar? We were in World War II for six years. We've got to be able to get to the endpoint,” he said.

“If we don't set end dates and we don't have targets the mission will go on forever … [and] we will end up being responsible for the ongoing management of Afghan security.”

The media will have a field day with this one.

Does anyone still wonder why Harper is a control freak? The ‘war rooms’ are filled with keen young thirty-somethings, most of whom have more enthusiasm than brains.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
Here is a pretty hard hitting NDP attack ad.

It's a good piece of TV. I hope it doesn't work.

Layton comes across strong in that video (And I didn't need to understand french to see that). He's finally gotten Broadbents rantitize out of his system publicly, but I still wouldn't buy a car from him.....
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a report on Defence Minister McKay’s comments:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnmackay0911/BNStory/politics/home
Canada will still have a role in Afghanistan: MacKay

BILL CURRY

Globe and Mail Update
September 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM EDT

NEW GLASGOW, N.S. — Canada will continue to play a role in Afghanistan even after the current military mission ends in 2011, says Conservative incumbent Peter MacKay.

Speaking in his New Glasgow, N.S. riding office, Mr. MacKay argued that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's comments about bringing Canada's military campaign to an end is not a new position for the government.

“I was surprised by the reaction,” said Mr. MacKay, who was defence minister at the time the election was called. “A vote has been taken twice under our government to allow the Members of Parliament elected in every riding in Canada to have their say on this issue and what the Prime Minister said [Wednesday] is completely consistent with what he said all along: We respect the Parliamentary mandate.”

Though the military mission will come to an end, Mr. MacKay made clear the Canadian government will still have some form of presence in the country.

“We're there in numerous roles. We're there participating in reconstruction and development through CIDA. We have diplomats who are working in Kabul,” he said.

“We have a significant number of civilian police trainers and military trainers and there are of course going to be NGOs so Canada will continue to support the effort to rebuild Afghanistan. But the Prime Minister was crystal clear. He said the mission in 2011 ends in 2011 and that's consistent with the vote that was taken in Parliament. That's respecting Parliament's voice.”

Mr. MacKay lobbied hard over the past year to secure more troop commitments from Canada's NATO allies for the Afghan mission. He said Canada will continue to pressure those countries so that they have a plan in place for replacing the Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan.

When asked about comments made by Jim Davis, who said his son's death in Afghanistan will be in vain if Canada pulls out of the country in 2011, Mr. MacKay said the troops have already made a major contribution.

“I don't think anyone has died in vain,” he said, pointing to the new roads, water systems, schools and hospitals that have been built while Canada has been there.

On Wednesday, Mr. MacKay attended the repatriation of the body of Sergeant Scott Shipway, who was killed Sunday when his armoured vehicle hit an explosive device.

“Of course it's tremendously emotional,” he said. “It's heartbreaking, it's absolutely devastating for these families that have lost loved ones. And yet, when they speak to the soldiers, when they hear upon their return how that quality of life has been augmented and improved, I don't believe they feel that it's in vain, not for a minute.”

In other news, Mr. MacKay said Canada will send the HMCS St. John's to Haiti in order to help the country recover from extensive hurricane damage.

“The situation in Haiti I believe is much worse than originally reported,” he said, adding that the HMCS St. John's, which happened to be in the area.

“It's steaming in the direction of Haiti. We should be there very soon,” he said.

Mr. MacKay said Canada is looking at further options of helping out. “We're contemplating the use of the DART," he said, in reference the special disaster assistance unit.

Canadian military engineers working on a reconstruction project in Jamaica are also being redeployed to Haiti, he said.

At least six key bridges have been destroyed, he said, meaning Canadian engineers may be able to help Haiti with its reconstruction plans.


Not really much new on the Afghanistan issue.

Haiti remains one of the least favoured nations in the whole world - near the bottom of the Bottom Billion.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a report on Defence Minister McKay’s comments:

I'd say MacKay did a good job of smoothing out the ripples from Harper's statement about the mission 'ending' in 2011. It does help to clarify what will happen and lets Canadians know that this is not a complete pull-out and 'fuggedaboudit' kind of thing, which it shouldn't be.
 
This, from Angus Reid, was released yesterday. Some interesting points (my emphasis added):

• In British Columbia, the NDP has managed to tie the usually dominant Tories (both at 31%), while the Liberals are third with 23 per cent, and the Greens are fourth with 12 per cent—their best showing in any of the six regions surveyed;

• In Quebec, the Bloc is barely ahead of the Conservatives (33% to 31%), with the NDP in third place (18%) and the Liberals running a distant fourth (12%); and

• The Conservatives also enjoy a five-point advantage over the Liberals in seat-rich Ontario (38% to 33%), with the NDP at 20 per cent.

 
I guess if May wants to play with the big boys, she's going to have to pay the same price for dumb comments

'Canadians Are Stupid!" - Elizabeth May
Article Link

Oh bring on the debate!!! Let's see Elizabeth May call Canadians 'stupid' on a live National Leaders Debate ... just like she did in this clip!

Make sure you read my friend, Dipper Chick's analysis of Canada's Green Party.

NOTE: (There is high traffic on youtube tonight watching this video so if you can't access it at the moment ... try back in a bit. The rightwingosphere is going nuts with this clip tonight as well on Steven Taylors site and oher blogging tory sites - Here is an mp3 copy - it comes up at the 1:50 minute mark. You should be able to play it on realplayer or some such. mp3 format
More on link

 
Back
Top