Posted on 01/20/2006 10:17:26 PM PST by goldstategop
If Canadians in Monday's election bring about a minority Conservative government, as the polls declare they will, it will be the first time in 26 years they have elected a prime minister who is not from Quebec. If they give a non-Quebecker a majority, a distinct possibility, it will be for the first time in 47 years.
In their massive perhaps premature celebration or commiseration of what they unanimously view as an impending Conservative victory, nowhere to my knowledge have the Canadian media mentioned this curious reality, which of course reflects Quebec's undeniable domination of the federal government for nearly half a century.
That's because it's quietly considered unmentionable. To call attention to the fact that the last three prime ministers to form majority governments – the Liberals Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien and the Conservative Brian Mulroney – all came from Montreal, is considered an unacceptable racial bias against French Canadians.
When one Conservative PM, the short-serving Kim Campbell of Vancouver, in a desperate bid to salvage an already-lost election ventured to call attention to this in some television ads, her party was almost wiped out in the ensuing vote. So saying only nice things about Quebec has become one of the entrenched absolutes of Canadian politics. No doubt it's a source of high amusement among that province's eminently intelligent, pragmatic and hard-nosed electorate.
They tend instinctively, for example, to act in concert, and they unerringly join the winning side. Thus when the polls showed a sudden upsurge in support for Conservative leader Stephen Harper across the country, within a week the polls in Quebec showed an even greater upsurge. He's now far ahead of the Liberals there and is threatening the expected sweep of the province by the separatist Bloc Quebecois.
But if Harper forms a government, whether with a majority or minority, he says himself he will have his hands full effecting any immediate changes. In a pre-election media interview, where tough questions were asked, he answered them all with a deft skill.
Did Canadians have any reason to fear radical actions if the Tories gained a clear majority, asked one reporter. It was a trap. If Harper said yes, then edgy liberally minded voters might be frightened away. If he said no, then conservatives would ask themselves why they were supporting him.
Canadians had little to fear from a Conservative majority, Harper replied, for three reasons. First, Canada's unelected Senate is almost wholly Liberal-appointed, and has the power of veto over the Commons. Second, the Liberal-appointed Supreme Court of Canada has demonstrated a distinct, socially left-wing bias and has wide powers to veto Parliament. Third, the entire upper echelon of the civil service was appointed by Liberals, thinks Liberal and will want the Liberals back, and upon these people the Conservative ministers would be initially dependent. This, he felt, was a sufficient check on Conservative "radicalism."
It was this kind of swift and clearly considered response that has gradually won Harper the support of Canadians. But his climb to the top of the polls has never been easy, and an unremitting record of success doesn't help him.
He first gained the leadership of the western-rooted Alliance Party. Then he successfully wedded it to the faltering Conservative Party. Then he gained the leadership of the united parties and somehow kept them together with little of the dissension that cripples Canadian conservative movements. Then in the last election, he broke the "Ontario barrier," picking up nearly one quarter of the seats in that province which had previously remained tight shut against western-born conservative movements. At the same time, he reduced the Liberal government to minority status.
Yet at each stage of this ascent, his leadership has been publicly questioned, and as recently as four months ago, party dissidents were speculating about a successor.
Why? Because he is, as his critics constantly point out, "nothing but a policy wonk." There's no passion, no exuberance, no hoopla. He has, however, a playful sensitivity to the absurd. Looking deadpan at an informal press party, he once said something to this effect: "They say that I should look happier. Well, see what I look like now. That's what I look like when I'm happy. Get used to it."
One thing about policy wonks, however, is that they have policies. They know what they'll do if they get elected. They can also answer tough questions. That's what has put him at the top of the polls and made him the central issue in this Canadian election.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
But how will the pundits in the US MSM spin a conservative win in canada?
I'm guessing a small writeup on page B12 of the major liberal rags with headlines like "Reports of Canadian election irregularities" and "Seniors and minorities report voter disenfranchisement in Canada vote"
"Seniors in Canada mistakenly vote for Pat Buchanan! Film at 11!"
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Sounds like Harper might be a real statesman instead of the usual pandering politician. He is obviously intelligent and can think fast if he can give clever answers to trick questions.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Great photo of Rona in leather in Parliment on her website. Helena also looking good on hers, although it appears she's glammed up recently. Glasses are gone, look quite H'wood.
Paul Martin identified 56 priorities. We've counted them – 56 priorities, and on aboriginal poverty, I don't see any evidence we're any farther ahead today than we were 10, 20, or 30 years ago, certainly not any farther ahead than we were two years ago.
I wonder what the price tag is for Paul Martin's 56 priorities.
Link to transcript of Your Turn with Stephen Harper at http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/your_turn_conservative.html
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.