June 08, 2004

Canadian elections

June 9 - The shrill warnings that the Conservative Party is full of religious fanatics who will overturn the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in this case abortion rights, is the one card we knew the Liberals would play, and Hugh Windsor in the Globe and Mail column On Harper, media fall for the Grit hype demonstrates how the media play a role in this endeavour.

He leaves it an open question whether the media play an unwitting role, but if they are unwitting then they are also unbelievably lazy, another trait they share with their colleagues further south.

Thus far, Stephen Harper has taken the high road, which itself is a pretty firm message to Canadians who want to see honesty and principles in those who would govern this country.

Francois over at The Bad News Bears puts it on the line:

There two ways to play this part of the game. Attack. Like the Libs, the NDP and to a lesser extent the Conservatives are doing. The other way is to look Prime Ministerial. ThatÂ’s what Paul Martin hopes to achieve this week with his trips abroad. The question on my mind is, will Harper raise the level of attacks to match his opponentsÂ’ or will he just stand there and swat away the attacks, giving him an air of leadership and strength? That seems to be working so far and I donÂ’t believe Canadians need to be reminded of adscam, etc. This strategy is making him look calm and solid while his opponents look ever more desperate.
Francois also makes this point:
He may be able to pull this off but itÂ’s vitally important that he keep a muzzle on his candidates who have a tendency to spout off their personal beliefs on every subject under the sun to anyone whoÂ’ll listen.
I'm not sure about that. So many things have become law in Canada via the courts rather than Parliament that Canadians may well thirst for political debate on issues even if though the result would probably be that the current laws stand.

The democratic process requires debate between opposing factions, even within parties, and is important in part because it engages the electorate in those arguments which lead up to the vote.

I dislike the imposition of party discipline because it excludes dissident voices within the party and thus dissident voices in the country. When voters feel their views haven't been allowed to be expressed because of The Party, it gives the appearance that they haven't been given a voice and thus are disenfranchised.

Voters want their say, even if their side loses. It's not really complicated.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Damned straight, nicely put.

Posted by: Paul Jané at June 09, 2004 06:28 PM (QMm6l)

2 When was the last time a "Conservative" party in Canada was both actually conservative and ably led? Hint - Don't think of any numbers under 30. Harper is the real deal. Canada's long Liberal nightmare may be coming to an end.

Posted by: alan at June 10, 2004 02:33 PM (dWDWo)

3 The link explains it...and it's about time that conservatives figured it out.

Posted by: Jack at June 10, 2004 07:56 PM (ntoZK)

4 I am 100% for Harper but that he has to, in order to get elected, publically dodge every reason I support him worries me a lot. If he dodges too much, we'll just have more of the same morally weak, wishy-washy leadership in Ottawa --conservative in name only. It's just depressing to watch a political soul being sold. I heard John Crosby talk about Harper not letting himself getside-tracked by "irrelevancies" but the fact is the issues he's dodging are extremely relevant.

Posted by: snorth at June 14, 2004 03:34 PM (My8fB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
15kb generated in CPU 0.0211, elapsed 0.1381 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1271 seconds, 146 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.