Posted on 06/29/2004 6:06:41 AM PDT by Clive
PAUL MARTIN lost this election. Yes, yes, he pulled off a minority -- and a bigger one than most anyone predicted, thanks to Ontario voters -- but for those who think there's more to the game than winning, he has lost plenty.
Martin may have hung on to his job, but he lost, too -- and not just because he turned what was once expected to be a fourth straight Liberal cakewalk into a squeaker.
No, what Martin lost isn't measured in votes and seats.
Think back to his glory days, as the revered finance minister, the guy who many thought made Jean Chretien look good. The second-in-command who many thought was the brains of the operation; the educated, worldly, elegant foil to the streetfighter leader.
His overthrow of "le petit gars," a decade in the making, was viewed by many as a cause to hang in there and trust the Liberals, even after the Shawinigate scandal, the HRDC mess and the gun registry fiasco surfaced. Not to worry, it was whispered (actually, the Globe and Mail said it outright in the 2000 election) -- soon Paul Martin will be in charge and the lustre of the PM's position will be restored.
Martin would be a leader Canadians could be proud of on the world stage. Martin would be a leader fiscal conservatives and lefties could love. Martin would bring the vision and hope and integrity the country so strongly craved after so many years of shrugging arrogance.
Today, that Paul Martin is dead, if he ever existed.
The distinguished millionaire statesman has been exposed as a cheap, desperate politician -- the figurehead of one of the dirtiest campaigns in memory.
He abandoned his crusade against the "democratic deficit" to appoint friends and "star" candidates. His omnipotent handlers ran anti-Conservative attack ads that were so far from true they insulted every voter's intelligence. (It's not that there was nothing about Stephen Harper's party to attack, it's that it was so, to borrow their pet term, extreme.) Through it all, Martin stammered and mangled words, at times worse than Jean Chretien and Joe Clark combined.
So what, you say -- it worked. He won. Along with the likes of Carolyn "Damn Americans" Parrish. But he lost in stature.
He promised vision but gave us only fear. Oh, and the empty vow that health care was his "No. 1 priority." Whatever.
He professed to be "mad as hell" about the sponsorship scandal and promised answers, but went trolling for votes instead. (Will we ever get to the bottom of that mess now?)
Old tricks
He said he would change the way things were done in Ottawa, but he resorted to the oldest, shoddiest political tricks in the book -- associating his opponents with images of gunfire, weeping women and a disintegrating Canadian flag.
He vowed to reach out to the West. That promise dissolved faster than the flag in his disgraceful ads when he lashed out at Alberta premier Ralph Klein's allegedly nefarious plan to privatize some aspect of health care. And he all but handed Quebec to the Bloc, reigniting the very separatist threat that the whole stupid sponsorship scheme was supposed to have killed.
After all that -- and his last-ditch scare campaign targeting the NDP -- how will he handle the compromises of a minority, especially one concentrated in Ontario and the East?
He told voters this election was about choosing "the kind of Canada we want." Somehow, I don't think "fractured" is what we had in mind.
The idea is that these entities can form a very viable Pacific Rim nation that is not ecomomically dependent on decisions made in Washington, New York, Ottawa and Toronto. Eastern decision making that is without regard to western needs.
There is a saying that much of Canada's elite works on the premis that everything important in Canada can be seen from the top of the CN Tower.
Three of my five offspring are now working in Alberta - it's the only part of Canada with a healthy economy.
I've been encouraging them to emigrate.
I think this is just a step along the way and lessons will be learned . CPC with an minority, say 136 , would have been a disaster. Who would we ally with in order to govern ?
We have gone from 52 seats (1993) to 60 seats (1997) to 66 seats (2002) and now to 99 seats (2004)
In Ontario, we went from 2 seats to 24 in one election.
We have 5 more Ontario seats than the NDP nationally.
Martin and the Liberals cannot govern without NDP support. The Liberals must name a speaker , who must resign his party affiliation. That gives them 134 and with severe negotiation with Smilin' Jack , 19 NDP for a total of 153 which is two short of a majority.
Election in 2005 . For a CPC majority government .
I have to agree with you. Too many Liberal Canadians are convinced they can vote themselves wealthy, courtesy of the national checkbook. As long as Alberta keeps funneling trainloads of cash to her neighbors in the east, those Libs will be right.
I live in Alberta. I can't speak for the rest of us but I'm really PO'd. Once again we've been given the back of the hand and told to sit down and shut up (and, oh, don't forget to keep sending those tax dollars back east).
I'll be looking for a credible separatist option starting today. My ideal outcome would be to become the 51st state.
Cheers
Jim
And why is that? I've always been under the impression that Alberta was similar in their political views to say . . . a state like Texas. Independent-minded but definitely bent conservative. Is it the war in Iraq that makes you say that? Or something else?
Cool. Nice trend.
I remember in the days of my youth that almost EVERY political office in Texas was Democratic-controlled -- back in the 60's and 70's. We had a token senator -- Senator Tower -- but the judges, mayors, Congress-critters, and state politicians were overwhelmingly Democratic.
I was the President of a young Republicans organization at Texas Tech. We didn't have any "active" members because all three of us had to serve as President, Vice-President, and Secretary. 3 conservatives who cared enough to get involved out of a 25,000 to 30,000 student body. LOL.
Man-oh-man it was lonely. Vietnam and Watergate tended to get us booed and hissed a lot when we were passing out pamphlets at the Student Union. But we persevered. Us conservatives tend to be a stubborn lot. That was my freshman year. My senior year we had 200+ members.
There was a nationwide survey in Canada a few years back that examined the issue of separatism, and the results were broken down by province. The results were very interesting:
1. The province of Quebec was most amenable to seceding from Canada and joining the U.S.
2. The province of Alberta was very receptive to the idea of seceding from Canada, but was the least receptive of all the provinces to the idea of joining the U.S.
Something you have to understand is this: Albertans are definitely independent-minded and conservative, and they view the United States as a liberal country that is just too similar to Eastern Canada for their liking.
I don't get much Canadian news in West Texas . . . just generally what I read on FR . . . but it always amazes me that you Albertans sure seem to get pounded on a lot by the muckety-mucks in Ottawa. Most folks I've met online from Alberta seem to have the same goals and values of my Texan neighbors. I live in cattle country and I know that's also a big part of the Albertan economy so my guess is we're all from the same-type of hardy stock.
Alberta would be a welcome addition.
Canada's political mileau is dominated by a centrist liberal Ontario and the liberals are helped to keep power by a recipient maritimes, but the US Federal government, to a lesser extent is also dominated by centrist liberal states with large populations, also aided by recipient states.
Alberta would be quite comfortable if the US was really controlled by middle America, but it isn't.
After eight years of Pee Wee Clinton and four years of "compassionate" conservatism . . . I can see why they would think that. But times are changing down here. Conservatives are learning that you can't compromise with liberals. Liberals have only one policy . . . to win at all costs, regardless of the tactics required and regardless of how winning might betray what they consider to be their "core" principles. Liberals have no principle. They'll lie, cheat, or steal to get reelected. Some of us are realizing some Republicans are the same way . . . and we plan on making changes.
But . . . with the choices before us . . . we have no REAL choice this election cycle. The War on Terror is too important. That's what the rest of the world doesn't understand. EVERY American has had a bullseye painted on our backs by terrorists the world over. We can either fight in their backyards or allow them to piss in our hometown sandboxes. We've decided to take the fight to them.
Thus . . . we have to put our dissatisfaction with some policies on hold for now. But don't think for a second we're happy with our "elected" officials. The internet is the great equilizer . . . and we'll weed out the liberals and compassionates in due time.
I also love Alberta, but I just can't give up the mountains, lakes, trees and the all around natural beauty of British Columbia. I am not a proud Canadian anymore, but I do love my home province.
I'm fearful that this doesn't bode well for our "W", especially when reviewing the underestimates that polling produced. Did Conservatives get over-confident and just not vote?
Sadly . . . you're right.
But the internet is the great equilizer. True-blue conservatives have forums to unite and get organized like never before. I predict you'll start to see a definite trend to "hometown" values and principles starting with the 2006 elections. The 2004 elections will turn out to be a one-topic election . . . The War on Terror -- I include the War in Iraq in this. So we can't allow our venom to allow us to forsake Bush or his "compassionate" conservatism BS right now. But the "true" conservatives are restless . . . and Washington will feel our wrath in due time.
You know there was a time when Toronto always was "blue" but that is going back into the early 1960s etc.
You said:
Stephen Harper said it best when he said that a Liberal minority supported by the NDP and backed by the Bloc would be "Corruption, Taxation, and Separation all the in the same Administration."
I loved that line which he came up with this past weekend and agree with it too.
Thanks for the kind words.
I've never been to Texas, but it sounds like my kind of place, other than the summer heat (I'm a weather wuss; I like it about 65 degrees). I wish my wife were ready to leave because I sure am.
Of course that would require a job in the US anyway, and I can't imagine they're that easy to come by when you're a foreigner.
But it would sure be nice if I could emigrate from the comfort of my easy chair, by Alberta joining the US!
Cheers
US population centers (never bastions of conservatism, but at one time still politically salvagable given the right conditions) will forever be firmly in the liberal camp forever for exactly the same reasons.
Its more trouble than its worth to mention it, but its the truth.
You're absolutely right. And that's exactly why Canada has always been such a left-leaning country -- because despite its enormous land area and small population, the vast majority of its population lives in urban areas.
Thank goodness for the relative habitability of 'flyover country'. Otherwise we'd be in the same boat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.