Echoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s promise that Canada will not “cut and run” from the Mission in Afghanistan, the Conservative Party of Canada has proposed a 2 year extension to Canada’s presence in Afghanistan.
Parliament plans to debate the topic for several hours Wednesday followed by a vote.
Canada currently has approximately 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan
Despite my prior intense interest in Canadian politics and in particular the 2006 election, I have decided to cease writing updates and opinion pieces for this site [northernpundit.com]. The reason is simple - I feel this election, as well as Canadian politics is nothing more than a circus of fools.
This election has proven to me what I have suspected (and not wanted to believe) for some time - Canadian ‘politics’ no longer consists of parties with platforms based upon leaders lobbying for what they believe in. Politics has become a scramble for votes - a disheartening and frantic attempt to appeal to as many voters as possible by promising anything and everything. We are presented with a set of parties who will promise whatever they feel the majority of the populous wants to get and stay in power.
That appears to be the only concrete truth and basis of politics in our current society - do whatever it takes to get and retain power.
Instead of leaders defending party choices and stances, we now witness an about-face of a challenged viewpoint to appease the populous. Attempts are made daily to discourage support of the opposing candidate with an expose of mistakes made in the past. These mistakes get repeated over and over, in a twisted and sad attempt to ultimately convince as many people as possible that a contrary vote will be helping criminal and a degenerate do more wrong to our country.
We are in trouble and none of the parties that have a shot at winning appear poised to fix the problems. This leaves me feeling discouraged and unwilling to choose any of the candidates presented to me in my district - and it appears I am not alone. Elections Canada’s report on the 2000 election states that nineteen percent of non-voters claimed they did not vote due to some sort of distaste for the parties or candidates running. I will be curiously awaiting the results from this election when they are published in a couple of years - I propose the above mentioned reason will rank much higher.
So what is the solution? What is supposed to happen in a democracy when there are no acceptable candidates? Who is to blame? I am unsure of the answers to these questions, being a chemist and computer geek - not a political scientist. I suppose the answer is that we are all to blame, and someone fresh and new to must run as a candidate in an attempt to alter this political stalemate we are in. But is that not what every candidate running in this election is promising us? Besides, who would be the just and pure hearted soul to selflessly tackle the problem? It certainly will not be this humble writer.
What I will be doing, however, is heading to the polls on January 23rd, and my action and protest will consist of spoiling my ballot. Perhaps this small gesture will help me, if no-one else, feel that I have done something more than sit and complain.
JJS
Jan 13, 2006
Just a few thoughts quick about the English language debate tonight, further info tomorrow:
Best Dressed Leader - Gilles Duceppe - his Pinstriped suit and silver tie looked sharp.
Best ‘Sleeper’ Point - Paul Martin saying ‘it’s a testament to the liberals that we’re even debating surpluses tonight’
Strangest Faces Shown on Camera - Duceppe while Martin was addressing the separatist issue. Paul Martin when Layton suggested he didn’t support gay rights.
Worst Handler Suggestion - The suggestion that Stephen Harper smile during the his response to each question. It made him look creepy - I was waiting for the punchline to a joke.
Biggest Name Dropper - Jack Layton, who used a regional NDP candidate’s name in almost every answer he gave.
‘Would Not Stop’ Award - Jack Layton, who ignored the timeframe given more often than not.
There is a large amount of drama circulating over Stephen Harper and Paul Martin’s opposing standpoints over relations with the US government during this 2006 Canadian Election Campaign. On one hand, the Harper and Layton camps are blasting at Martin, accusing him of posturing, while Paul Martin’s groups continues to dig at Harper about his past actions and opinions.
The US government has also jumped into the fray, accusing Martin of playing to the anti-US sentiment to win the election.
Even the American media can’t resist writing about the election, the Washington Times has an article dated Dec. 12 that presents Harper as George W. Bush’s dream candidate.
So what does it all mean to me? Well obviously any sort of conservative candidate is the desired outcome for the Bush government - being conservative themselves. But the Washington Times article does have some merit - and unfortunately very valid points. What they fail to consider is that a Stephen Harper victory may not mean much more than a change in figurehead of a minority government, leading us back into another political stalemate. The NDP will side with Liberals on votes and back we go to square one.
As for Paul Martin, I personally believe that he is posturing - his handlers have no doubt indicated to him that expressing some anti-US sentiment could be a way to swing some undeicded voters.
This is a dangerous game to play - the US being our largest trade partner and closest neighbour. I understand that a percentage of those in our country that are against the Bush government, but recall that the reign of any government is temporary - but national strain can last forever. Any sort of anti-US sentiment being expressed (Towards the government or not) can also cause disdain US populous, and then ANY elected party could hold a grudge that we might not shake off.
I have been watching the Television lately and one thing that never fails to creep me out is Stephen Harper’s over-use of lipstick in the recent Conservative Party of Canada commercials. It’s very distracting and I rarely absorb the ‘Canadian Election’ message of the commerical, instead pondering why use THAT MUCH lipstick?
The CalgaryGrit has a great post about Rob Anders, the incumbent Conservative MP in Calgary West. He writes:
From the CTV weblog, comes news that Rob Anders is campaigning…in British Columbia. Apparently Anders has sent questionnaires on Crystal Meth to Richmond, BC in an effort to help out the Conservative cause.
Among the questions: “Do you support homosexual sex marriage”?
Because OBVIOUSLY the opinion of those addicted to Crystal Meth is important. I imagine, however that they may be more likely to support heterosexual sex-marriage or perhaps abstainance-sex marriage.
The Globe and Mail has a story about Stephen Harper pledging more support for the Military:
“The men and women who put on the uniform of Canada must have the tools they need to
protect themselves and to do their job,” Mr. Harper said at a hotel across from Canadian Forces Base Trenton.He said the extra money would help buy at least three big, strategic transport planes, re-establish an airborne force and double the size of the DART, the humanitarian team which most recently was used in the aftermath of the Pakistan earthquake.
Mr. Harper is really covering all bases this campaign - I doubt there is a single Canadian that he has not attempted to appeal to in his the campaign - but will it work?
The CBC is reporting that Stephen Harper claims he would not send Canadian troops to Iraq but he applauds the US efforts toward Iraqi freedom.
On Iraq, Harper said he supported the removal of Saddam Hussein and applauded the “efforts to establish democracy and freedom.”
But he said he would not commit Canadian troops to the country and added his “great
disappointment” at not substantiating pre-war intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction.
Sounds like another way of saying “I wish I could send troops but I know that voters wouldn’t support it if I mentioned this before the election”..
The Edmonton Journal has a piece describing Stephen Harper’s plan for tax breaks based on children in sports:
The Tory leader said the initiative, combined with a promised GST cut and the $1,200 a year payment for parents with children under six, is part of a bid to support Canadian families and offer a tangible form of tax relief.
“Governments should not just encourage international excellence in sports, but also
(encourage) the choices of ordinary families that enourage active children,” Harper said here at a hockey arena with three western Quebec Tory candidates.
I agree with Mr. Harper’s intent but I’d like to see a laid out definition of “Sports” before I make a supportive decision - It appears that activities including Poker are now considered sports in the broadest definition. Would handicapped children taking part in physical therapy also qualify?
In yet another strange-yet-true election campaign story, the Ottawa Sun reports on a Stephen Harper visit to a St. Catharines Karate School Saturday:
Instructor Tom Burtnik, who runs the small martial arts club in St. Catharines, introduced the Conservative leader to a group of kids who will soon travel to a competition in Las Vegas — their first competition out of the country.
Harper did his best Captain Highliner imitation as he questioned the young athletes.
“So are you going to see the Las Vegas strip while you’re there? Do some gambling?” Harper asked six-year-old Kolten Wight.
Perhaps he should have also suggested that they enjoy some drinks or fine Cuban cigars.