In the Saturday Dec. 2, 2006 edition of CNEWS, Alexander Panetta reported on Jean Chretien’s comments regarding Paul Martin’s leadership. In my opinion, they are very telling of the Liberal Party philosophy, and its raison d’etre. It is the reason I will never vote for them. It is the reason why I view the voters of the Liberal-loving city of Toronto with disdain and contempt, and it’s the reason why I fear for Canada if they gain power again any time soon.
To quote: “Chrétien was asked who he was pulling for. ‘A good leader,’ he replied. He was asked: What characterizes a good leader? ‘One who wins elections.’”
That, my fellow Canadians, is the total “vision” of Canada you get when you elect a Liberal government. Their “vision” is that they want to be back in power. Period. To win. Nothing more.
Look at the current “top” crop of four contenders, one of whom will be chosen by tonight as, potentially, our next Prime
Minister.
A failed … REALLY failed socialist premier of Ontario, who now says he didn’t mean any of it, and he’s no longer a socialist. Riiiight. Don’t forget, this guy inspired Ontarians to vote massively …. twice, for Mike Harris as a moderate, “common sense” alternative. He nearly bankrupted us. I don’t believe for a minute that this leopard has changed its spots. Elect this guy Prime Minister, and we will all ride a very bumpy slide down to third world status as real entrepreneurial business flees for greener pastures.
Yet it’s scary to think that the Liberals might very well pick this guy, only because they have to pick someone, and they may think he has the best chance of this sorry bunch to win. They’ll risk “Cuba North” for all of us in order to get it.
Secondly a wayward professor who hasn’t even lived in Canada in over 30 years, and who has shown a penchant for condescension, verbosity, and the quickly-adapted ability (required Liberal trait) to change direction 180 degrees if espousing his true feelings and beliefs appears to make him unwinnable. They’ll all say and/or do anything …
Third, yet another Quebecer, and one from the Chrétien cabinet to boot. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had just about enough of this scene for one lifetime. Do we really want or need more of it? I do not believe a single word from any of them that they didn’t know what was going on in the sponsorship scandal. They were all so happy to be winning, it didn’t matter what it took, and those not directly involved obviously didn’t want to ask, or look too deeply.
Finally a union-placating food bank champion who moved from one socialist enclave (Winnipeg) to another (Toronto) and finally into politics. In my opinion, his “business plan” (hah!) will be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and rewarding Paul so handsomely and making him so dependant on the gravy train that he can count on Paul’s support in perpetuity. This option (along with option #1) will chase jobs and entrepreneurs so far out of Canada we’ll never recover in my lifetime.
If you liked Ontario’s downward-spiraling tax and spend economies under McGuinty and Rae, you’ll definitely love Canada under Kennedy or Rae in my opinion.
So “NONE OF THE ABOVE” is my choice for Liberal leader. That this sad assortment of wannabes is the best they can do tells me volumes about their unfitness to lead. I think the toilet needs to be flushed one or two (or three?) more times before we can even begin to think about giving this soulless party another kick at the can. The only remotely attractive/competent leader (to me) from that side is Frank McKenna, and tellingly, he wanted nothing to do with this three-ring circus.
Jean Chretien’s brutally frank definition of a “good leader” as one who wins elections is sickening to me. It’s disgusting. It’s nauseating. And it’s the reason why Canadians despise politicians so much. It is completely and utterly devoid of any of the right reasons anyone should want to go into politics.
I believe that in his small warped little political world, it’s all about them, and very little to do with us. We are only important in that we are necessary every four years to keep them there. “Policy” and promises are little more than necessary tools required to be made up and then cast aside in order to get elected and stay there. And vision and principles are nothing more than targets to vilify in your opponents. The “party” and “winning” is what it’s all about to them.
In my personal opinion, Jean Chretien’s 40 years in politics, rather than being celebrated, should be held up in disgust to every Political Science 101 class as the poster child example of why Canada should have term limits.
Famed U.S. General, H. Norman Schwarzkopf, defined leadership much differently. “Leadership is Character and Competence. If you can only have one of these, it has to be Character.”
The Liberal record is clear over the past 13 years. Based on this definition, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about the whole lot of them.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Oh well said....
Nice to meet you :-)
The old boys are back in...
maybe SD will have a red phone hooked up to Jchretien to take his orders...
To be fair, isn't his "winnability" exactly why the Ontario PCs picked Tory for their leader? There certainly hasn't been much policy coming out of the OPC camp...
There will be policy forthcoming from PCPO in 2007 (election year), and it will be clear, succinct, achievable AND (the big difference between John Tory and any of the last batch of Liberal leaders, both federal and provincial) John Tory will keep his promises. His record of credibility, service and competence is impecable.
By contrast, no matter what comes out of Dalton McGuinty's mouth, I won't believe a single word. Not a word. His record too is well-established and clear.
Incredibly, lack of planning, incompetence and breaking promises are all acceptable in Toronto as long as you are a Liberal. I think it's expected and maybe even admired in the city of entitlement.
Regardless, though, it's obviously acceptable in the OPC's mind to elect a leader without worrying about policy, but only the ability to get back into power. I'm sure the federal Liberals, too, will hash out the details.
To criticize Liberals for having a history of policy you disagree with or broken election promises or scandal is one thing, but to criticize them for electing a leader based on winnability seems hypocritical.
With respect, you've missed the point. Of course the PCPO wants to win as does every political party, but not at any cost.
Look at the NDP, a party of principle. They could probably have won power several times in the past if they were willing to dump some of their more far-left dogma, which they aren't. I don't agree with them, but I admire their principled approach.
Principle means something for many of us, as hard as that is to imagine for a Liberal. It's the price you pay for being able to look at yourself in the mirror each day.
Contrary to your assertion that the PCPO picked a leader "without worrying about policy", policy was very much an issue if you followed the race. For example, private/hybrid health care was one of the key policy issues at stake in the leadership contest. Frank Klees was for it and John Tory opposed it.
Regardless of policy details, there are also principles. The PCPO has a list of 8 principles in its constitution, and these principles are supposed to guide all policy and action within the party's role in government. You would never, for instance, see the PCPO pick a leader they thought had the "best chance of winning" if he or she was promising to nationalize the banks to get that win. It is against everything the PCPO stands for, and it would never happen.
But that would never have stopped Jean Chretien in my opinion. He would do or say anything if he thought it would give the party another term in office ... again, in my opinion. Look at Dalton McGuinty's bald-face election lie, promising not to raise taxes in writing, and then doing exactly that virtually upon taking power. That is the difference. In my opinion, Liberals will say or do almost anything to get elected. That's the history I have observed over my lifetime. It's not a one-time mistake or the weakness of a single leader. It's a pattern of institutional behaviour that seems to survive successive changes in party personnel. You can't change history. It is there for all to see.
The CBC charitably calls this "campaigning from the left and governing from the right". Most everyday people would use plain language and simply call it "lying".
I did a Google search for "Leadership" quotes. There are many great and noble definitions of "Leadership". Jean Chretien's convention definition of a "great leader" is the saddest, shallowest, most selfish and "it's all about me" example that I can imagine. Disgusting is the most appropriate word I can think of.
We will see what kind of a leader is Stephane Dion. He will hopefully be a step up from Chretien (in my opinion, the single worst Prime Minister of our time) and Mr. Dithers ("I have 14 number one priorities if you will only elect me"). To date, Dion's failure to see that Dual Citizenship is indeed relevant to a potential Prime Minister, where it would mean little to you or me, does not bode well for his instincts, and his rhetoric on "the environment" when he allowed greenhouse emissions to increase 30% on his watch speaks volumes of the Liberal penchant for saying one thing and doing another. He was a Liberal cabinet minister from Montreal during the Sponsorship scandal, so I have an extremely hard time imagining he didn't have, at the very least, a suspicion of what was going on. His open arrogance in dismissing early criticism is vintage Trudeau - Chretien. The party's failure to vote for one member - one vote is vintage Liberal. PCPO has had this for decades. The peons, not just the elite, get a say in conservative politics.
So, new leader and renewed party? Not likely. Like the Liberal record, I see rhetoric trumpeting one thing, and reality revealing something quite different. Time will tell.
Post a Comment