Sunday, December 11, 2005

Two short posts from the CTV Election Weblog...

...crossposted here for maximum self-promotional effect:

Stupid is as Stupid Says?

I wonder why it took so long (2 whole days!) for this story to bubble up to the surface:

Tory called 'disrespectful' to women

"I am copping what's known as a woman's answer, isn't it? It's a sort of fickle kind of thing," he (Conservative MP Brian Pallister) said, responding to criticism that a federal election campaign is no time for a candidate to be examining other job prospects.

Perhaps we've been so blinded by the beer and popcorn, the concept of homosexual sex marriage, and the elder-bashing that we almost let this one get away.

Sometimes I wonder what goes through peoples' minds when they open their mouths - in public, on the record, at critical moments like during an election campaign.
Certainly, I wouldn't want all my spoken words reported upon with every syllable analyzed but if I knew they were going to be, I'd like to think my internal censor would be a little more functional than these peoples' were.

On occasion what's said is an arguably valid point, expressed in a stupid manner. I think a discussion of whether to give child care money directly to families to use as they wish, or spend it on government programs, is a reasonable debate. But you do not go on national TV to alienate the electorate. That's why it's called politics. Or is that diplomacy, I'm not sure.

Other times, what's said is just plain stupid. The question Pallister was answering had nothing to do with women or any issue other than his own career path in politics. But now we know how he really feels.

This 'n That

About this income trust thing: it's starting to look a lot like Martha. A big fuss about something that is very difficult to prove, with the potential to be made much worse by trying to cover it up and/or lie about it.

Let them investigate - any speculation from either side only stirs up more speculation. It could be a juicy issue but let's make sure we keep to the original issue and not end up knitting ponchos behind bars for nothing.

About Quebec, I've lived here all my life and I really don't know what they are thinking.

Well, that's probably the point, they aren't thinking, they're feeling. And I can relate to a certain degree. Having one's own country to go with one's culture is a very romantic concept. Not very practical, for many reasons, but oh so romantic.

The irony is that separation anxiety had calmed down a lot up until the sponsorship scandal broke. The Bloc Quebecois only won 38 seats in the 2000 election even though the PQ was in power provincially. In 2004 the Bloc won 54 and the rhetoric rose to levels dangerous to the average eardrum.

Another factor might be that the Quebec Liberals won a majority mandate in 2002. I suspect that many Quebecers love to rant and rave when it's safe but pull back when it's time to truly decide.

So, what's best for the Quebec Federalist? I've heard arguments for both a Liberal and Conservative Canadian government but find the Conservative one a little hard to buy. Yes, they don't (yet) bear the stigma of scandal and corruption but they would very likely not have any representation from Quebec and their platform has the least in common with our social values of all the mainstream parties.

I'll stick with the Liberals for now, despite my distaste for the Chretien era and my suspicion that they might need some time off. Even a short Conservative minority run might do more harm than good, I think.

No comments: