Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wetcoaster

Justin Trudeau - Suffering from Foot in Mouth - Canadian Style

317 posts in this topic

Yeah but men are voting for the guy too. Maybe there's more to looks about it. (Like his surname) Or maybe people have been waiting for a legit alternative to Harper. Note that a Bob Rae-led Liberal party is off the map.i

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre Elliot Trudeau did more to shape Canada as it is today than any other PM in our history .. if you hate Trudeau, then you hate Canada, for Canada is a reflection of the man .. say what you will, but his repatriation of the BNA single handily did more to help Canada become the multicultural mecca that it is today than any other act .. every night, each of us should drop to our knees and thank him for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms .. Mulroney was a complete doosh bag and Harper is the "spewage" from said "doosharooney" ..

Pierre, perhaps the greatest Canadian PM in history .. he WILL be judged by history, thankfully, and not the right-wing-nut fringe that stalk the halls of CDC .. peace out, mothers .. :lol:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre Elliot Trudeau did more to shape Canada as it is today than any other PM in our history .. if you hate Trudeau, then you hate Canada, for Canada is a reflection of the man .. say what you will, but his repatriation of the BNA single handily did more to help Canada become the multicultural mecca that it is today than any other act .. every night, each of us should drop to our knees and thank him for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms .. Mulroney was a complete doosh bag and Harper is the "spewage" from said "doosharooney" ..

Pierre, perhaps the greatest Canadian PM in history .. he WILL be judged by history, thankfully, and not the right-wing-nut fringe that stalk the halls of CDC .. peace out, mothers .. :lol:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a brief recap.

In the interview on Les francs-tireurs, Trudeau said that “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda.”

He also said Canada would be better served if there were more Quebecers than Albertans in charge.

Trudeau apologized on Friday, saying his comments were meant to be directed at Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who rose to power as an MP from Calgary. He spun it claiming that his comment about the lack of Quebecers in power was an attempt to urge voters in Quebec to support a national party rather than the Bloc Quebecois. It certainly does not read that way when his words are taken in context. :sadno:

And how about the view from Quebec about Justin Trudeau's anti-Albertan remarks?

Yves Boisvert of Montreal’s La Presse said Quebecers would be outraged if another high-profile politician made similar statements about their own province.

“We can easily imagine the howls we’d make if a contender for the leadership of a federal party spoke in such generalizing terms about Quebecers,” Boisvert said in a column on the newspaper’s website.

Boisvert suggested that Trudeau supporters should “start to ask serious questions about the quality of his political judgment, and his judgment in general.”

A writer for the magazine L’Actualite, meanwhile, said the comments could hurt Trudeau for a long time to come as he tries to make inroads in Western Canada.

“In one fell swoop, this particular interview revives doubts shared by many in Western Canada about the federal Liberals,” Manon Cornellier said in a blog post.

“What should they believe? What Justin Trudeau said only two years ago or what he’s saying now, as he seeks their support in his bid for the Liberal Party of Canada.”

And Rex Murphy's take on the Trudeau "fox pass"... not only does it help the Conservatives but he has managed to give Mulcair and the NDP an advantage that they had seemingly lost.

Said the young prince in that rediscovered video clip: “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn’t work.” Wow.

The real butter on the contentious popcorn was when he added that Canada has been “better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans.”

Let’s load up on Quebec prime ministers, in other words. Can’t be too many of them.

How such disparaging remarks will contribute to a “less divisive” Canada — one of Mr. Trudeau’s high themes as he seeks the Liberal leadership — is a puzzle for hungry Jesuits to unravel. Sounds more like a slur against a region of the country to me.

Till Mr. Trudeau’s ruminations made the front pages, I thought the McGuinty brothers, outgoing Ontario premier Dalton and his brother David, were the national leaders when it comes to side-jabs at Alberta. Just this week, David, the Liberal Ottawa-area MP, resigned his critic’s post after telling reporters that Alberta’s Conservative MPs “should go back to Alberta and run either for municipal council in a city that’s deeply affected by the oilsands business or go run for the Alberta legislature.”

All of this cuts squarely across the newly-minded accommodation with the West that Mr. Trudeau has been sounding in his speeches, and his condemnation of the NDP as a party that “plays one region of the country against another.” Thomas Mulcair has got the first and best of all the Christmas presents he will receive this year.

This places Mr. Trudeau, at an early and inauspicious time, squarely in the tradition he wanted to overwrite: that of his father’s unhappy, voteless and sometimes contemptuous dealings with Western Canada. People on the Prairies are going to hear the son’s words, but they will shiver at the father’s memory.

Mr. Mulcair, Mr. Trudeau’s real, immediate opponent, had early on upset some of the West with his remarks about Canada’s allegedly oil-engendered “Dutch Disease.” But since then, Mr. Mulcair has been in Alberta, and taken on a very congenial matter, and moderate tone, when discussing that province.

In politics, it’s good to have your head well above the high grass, but it should never, ever, be in the clouds. That’s where Justin’s was when he gave the interview that he now, no doubt, very much regrets.

http://fullcomment.n...s-new-bogeyman/

And as Andrew Coyne writes in the National Post the McGuinty and Trudeau comments are qualitatively quite different and McGuinty's are more defensible than Trudeau's even if you believe the spin that Trudeau is trying to put on his remarks talking about "context"... and BTW I personally do not find his spin holding up under even cursory scrutiny.

Justin Trudeau hurt more than saved by context of anti-Alberta comments

Two Liberal MPs, two errant statements about Albertans, two days apart. It all adds up to a mess of trouble for the Liberal Party in the province, and the region, where they must make inroads if they hope to be competitive in the long run — and where they hope to steal a by-election next Monday.

The tendency is to treat the two situations as the same: Liberal Alberta-hatred, if you’re a Conservative; Conservative gotcha politics, if you’re a Liberal. But in fact the two are quite distinct.

The statements of David McGuinty, that Tory MPs from Alberta were too narrowly devoted to the interests of the oil industry — “shilling” was the word he used — to the detriment of the national interest, more nearly fit the “gotcha” mould. It is perfectly defensible for one MP to challenge another to take a broader view of an issue than just that of his own particular region or industry. I only wish more MPs did the same.

It’s also perfectly defensible for MPs to defend their region or industry, if they think it is being treated unjustly — if it is not the broader interest to which they are being asked to yield, but some narrower agenda. As bad as the National Energy Program was for Alberta, the truer indictment of it is that it was bad for the country. It wasn’t in the national interest to deprive Alberta of the world price of oil: it was strictly in the interest of central Canadian manufacturers.

No doubt there are people today who take a similarly blinkered view of the oil industry: the “Dutch disease” theorists come to mind. There is nothing wrong in principle with asserting that a boom in the resource sector often comes at the cost of a decline in manufacturing (though it may be wrong in fact). What’s wrong is the assumption that this is necessarily to be deplored, as if the interests of manufacturing should naturally take precedence over those of resources.

But if it is wrong to equate the national interest with the interests of manufacturing, it is equally wrong to equate it with those of the oil patch. The offensiveness or otherwise of McGuinty’s remarks, therefore, depends on the context — on the specific terms of his dispute with the Alberta MPs, not the mere fact that McGuinty accused them of parochialism. If he was out of line, it should be easily demonstrated. The MPs’ practised displays of outrage reek more of opportunism than offence.

Justin Trudeau’s statements, on the other hand, are a different matter. True, it was in 2010, not this week, that he complained to an interviewer in Quebec that “it’s Albertans who control our community and social-democratic agenda — it doesn’t work,” adding that “I’m a Liberal, so of course I think” the country is better governed by Quebecers than Albertans.

But it does not alter the fact that he said these things, and presumably believed them.

To be sure, there is a context here, too: Trudeau was making these remarks by way of defending Quebec’s participation in Canada, against Quebec nationalists who insist it must withdraw into itself to defend the French language and culture. This is wholly honourable, even praiseworthy.

But context only partly saves him. If he was not deliberately exploiting divisions for partisan gain — it was Canada he was defending, not the Liberal Party — but rather was caught in an unguarded moment, it was all the more revealing for that: these were his real thoughts, not a card he was playing.

If it suggests he was not thinking of national leadership at the time (for if he had he could hardly have imagined this would not cause trouble for him elsewhere) it also suggests a sincere belief that Albertans are a wholly alien people, who cannot be permitted to “control our community” — who are, indeed, ill-equipped to govern the country. His defence, a day after the controversy broke, that he had mistaken Stephen Harper’s views for those of Albertans, does little to erase this impression.

This is not the first time, after all, that Trudeau has unburdened himself on this topic. In another infamous interview for the Quebec media, in which he intimated that if he concluded Stephen Harper’s values were those of Canada, he might one day be a separatist, too, he conveyed the same sense of Quebec’s approach to government being, if not altogether different, then superior, more progressive than those of
les autres
— as if Quebec’s role was to civilize the rest of Canada. “It’s not necessarily that Canadians don’t have the same values as us Quebecers,” he said then. “It’s that there’s a way of seeing social responsibility, openness toward others, a cultural pride here in Quebec that’s necessary for Canada.”

Look: there
are
differences in values, or at least in priorities, between different regions. Many people in Quebec would share Trudeau’s view of the province’s
mission civilisatrice
, as indeed do its admirers in the rest of Canada. It’s just hard to square that with a national leadership role — as a practical matter if nothing else.

Whatever the accuracy or otherwise of Trudeau’s views, people in Alberta would be entitled to conclude from them that he did not much care for their province, and to cast their votes accordingly. And people in other parts of the country would be equally entitled to wonder whether this person had the breadth of vision, or the judgement, to be a force for unity, rather than division — to govern for the whole country, rather than a part of it.

Even if you thought these things, after all, why would you say them? It is no defence, for those in positions of political leadership, that what they say is true. It was probably true, as a sociological fact, that “the ethnic vote” played a crucial role in defeating the 1995 referendum in Quebec. But sociological facts, in the mouth of a premier, take on rather a darker colouring. As always, context is everything.

http://fullcomment.n...berta-comments/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin is spin, Wet! .. politics is war .. war is unworthy of human endeavor .. Quebec and Alberta deserve each other .. NFL is great .. CFL not so much .. go Lions .. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin is spin, Wet! .. politics is war .. war is unworthy of human endeavor .. Quebec and Alberta deserve each other .. NFL is great .. CFL not so much .. go Lions .. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre Elliot Trudeau did more to shape Canada as it is today than any other PM in our history .. if you hate Trudeau, then you hate Canada, for Canada is a reflection of the man .. say what you will, but his repatriation of the BNA single handily did more to help Canada become the multicultural mecca that it is today than any other act .. every night, each of us should drop to our knees and thank him for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms .. Mulroney was a complete doosh bag and Harper is the "spewage" from said "doosharooney" ..

Pierre, perhaps the greatest Canadian PM in history .. he WILL be judged by history, thankfully, and not the right-wing-nut fringe that stalk the halls of CDC .. peace out, mothers .. :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Trudeau did to stabilize and enshrine many of the social programs we take for granted is legend! .. and neither shall history not be judged by those who jump from side to side so often they have splinters in their collective nether regions .. :lol:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin is fine but it should at least have a tenuous grasp on reality and that is missing from the Justin Trudeau spin cycle.

And given the Conservative's history of exploiting weakness and cutting off political opposition at the knees with their own words, this does not augur well for the young prince.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Most of the programs taken for granted like bi-lingualism, pensions, universal health care were all done before Trudeau ever took power. Tommy Douglas was known as the father of universal health care. Pearson was the one who selected the current flag. Even Diefenbaker had his Bill of Rights. Bi-Lingualism was already in the Constitutional act of 1867 where both language were to be used in Parliament and the courts.

What Trudeau did was expand the programs. He did not invent them.

Historians already say Mackenzie King was the greatest PM, not Trudeau. Yes, the best PM will not be judged by the left wing wackos in the halls of CDC.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kim Campbell @ #22 .. thanks for the synopsis Wet ^ ^ ^ .. he did a lot more good than harm .. Harper will be remembered for Carbon Dioxide emissions ..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LoL

As an Albertan, i can say that if any other province was treated the way alberta was (in terms of its wealth getting pillaged for the eastern provinces sake). They would have had a seperatist movement stronger then quebecs..

the fact that quebec is the biggest beneficiary of alberta handouts makes his comments all the more ironic

Trudeau is nothing but a parasite. Who uses inflammatory rhetoric to win a few votes. He does nothing but creat seperation, hate and conflict. Does canada really want someone like that in politics? let alone the future PM?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LoL

As an Albertan, i can say that if any other province was treated the way alberta was (in terms of its wealth getting pillaged for the eastern provinces sake). They would have had a seperatist movement stronger then quebecs..

the fact that quebec is the biggest beneficiary of alberta handouts makes his comments all the more ironic

Trudeau is nothing but a parasite. Who uses inflammatory rhetoric to win a few votes. He does nothing but creat seperation, hate and conflict. Does canada really want someone like that in politics? let alone the future PM?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument made that the Conservatives can easily dispatch Justin Trudeau is made weaker when so much effort has been taken to remind us all of his flaws at this point... Before he's even Liberal leader? Don't recall this much fear about Ignatieff or Dion, that's for sure.

However, the fear is justified this time. All the guy has to do is ride his father's name to glory. (Like Bush?) And whether it's be the upcoming election or the year after, it would seem that Harper's reign is coming to an end.

Harper's biggest ally in past elections was voter apathy. Why boot him out when the other party's presented garbage? Now that they have somebody else to vote for, the shaky ground the Cons were always on will collapse beneath them. At least, this was the prediction as long as Justin Trudeau doesn't screw it all up.

Sure, he very well can still. But the big screw up involves Quebec.

So he sneezed at Alberta in 2010... Oooooh, that's gonna hurt. Pffft...

Need more ammo!

PS. No legit federal party in Canada cares about Alberta in an election.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoken like a "hurtin Albertan" .. no! .. we want more politicians like Steven "OIl Boy" Harper and Ralph "Am I Drunk Yet" Klein .. keep producing em .. Alberta .. Canada's version of Saudi Arabia, just less tolerant .. :lol:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin's mentality isn't limited to him, or directly solely at Alberta. A lot, and I mean a lot, of Quebecers and Ontarians see Western Canada as being Canada's version of the U.S. South.

Anyway it looks as even the CBC and Quebec are turning against The Shiny Pony, I think by election he'll be known as the 3rd stooge after Dion and Iggy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBC's At Issue panel of Andrew Coyne, Chantal Hébert and Bruce Anderson moderated by Peter Mansbridge from Thursday's program presented a rare united front and took serious shots at Justin Trudeau and his anti-Alberta remarks.

As Chantal Hébert said just substitute Quebec or Quebeckers for Alberta or Albertans in the remarks and think of outrage that would have provoked. As she notes "if you don't think it, you don't say it". This was not just a gaffe, it is a major error in judgement on Trudeau's part.

Andrew Coyne says the remarks are very damaging reinforcing a pre-existing notion of how the central Canadian LPC elites see Alberta and worse Trudeau gave no indication that he did not believe what he said. It marks down his ability to unify a fractious country.

Bruce Anderson says terrible comments in light of what he had been trying to do in trying to appear inclusive of the West and in particular Alberta recently. It also speaks to his lack of fitness for high office and his judgment - the sort of concerns that had been lurking just below the surface even in his own party.

And as Andrew Coyne points out all the riding associations across Canada will have equal weight when voting for the next leader so it does not matter for those purposes if the Liberals have elected MPs, the riding counts the same as heavily subscribed Liberal riding in Ontario or Quebec and another candidate could exploit this.

And all the panel agrees this will have great effect on the by-election and according to Chantal Hébert Trudeau may well wear this defeat.

Here is the video of the panel discussion.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/atissue/story/2012/11/22/thenational-atissue-112212.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.