Justin Trudeau Becomes Liberal Leader & Possible PM

[PlayingBurke]

I say let them go. Either they sink or swim; either way, it's not Canada's concern. As for the initial topic; Jr. is likeable, however, he will not go far as to putting the Liberals back into power. Until the Left work out their ideology lines they are their own worse enemy.

[ronthecivil]

I say let them go. Either they sink or swim; either way, it's not Canada's concern. As for the initial topic; Jr. is likeable, however, he will not go far as to putting the Liberals back into power. Until the Left work out their ideology lines they are their own worse enemy.

[Wetcoaster]

Justin is just barely on the job as Liberal leader and he is back at it again with his "I know what i said but that is not what i meant shtick." What a doofus.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper sharply criticized new Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for trying "to rationalize or make excuses" for whoever was responsible for the bombings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon that killed three and injured over 100 people.

Harper, who was commenting from London where he attended the funeral of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher this morning, took issue with Trudeau suggesting during a media interview that "the root causes" of the motivation for the bombing should be examined.

The right way to respond Harper said is to “condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible. And that's what this government would do if ever faced with such actions."

Harper had not been asked specifically about Trudeau's remarks. But he made it clear he wanted to comment on an interview that CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge did with Trudeau, which aired Tuesday night on The National. In the interview, Mansbridge asked Trudeau what he would do if he were prime minister on the day the bombings occurred.

Trudeau replied, after saying he would offer help and condolences, that "over the coming days" it would be necessary to "look at root causes." He continued, "We don't know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society."

Trudeau finished by saying that it was important not to "marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future."

Trudeau spoke to Mansbridge on Monday, only two hours after the news of the Boston bombing. His reply to Mansbridge's query about what he would do was made an hour before the Prime Minister's Office issued a statement. Trudeau's initial remarks about condolences and an offer to help were the same as Harper's reaction, although Trudeau went on to talk about possible causes.

Clarifies remarks

On Wednesday, after a meeting with his caucus, Trudeau clarified his remarks when asked by a reporter what he meant by "root causes."

"Obviously, we have to make sure that as we move forward we look at creating a safe community, a safe country, a safe world for all citizens and all individuals and that happens both with security and with, with a significant commitment to peace, as highlighted in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Trudeau said.

After question period Wednesday, Trudeau went quickly to the microphone in the foyer of the House of Commons to make a comment in English and one in French.

First, he said that he'd just been handed an account of what he called "the prime minister lashing out."

"I really hope Mr. Harper rethinks the extents and the lengths he is willing to go to personally attack people and to politicize tragedies like that," Trudeau said.

The controversy over Trudeau's remarks is reminiscent of the firestorm after comments former prime minister Jean Chretien made a year after the 9/11 attacks, although Chretien was much more explicit about what might have motivated those that hijacked planes with the intention of crashing them into buildings.

In a 2002 interview with Mansbridge, Chretien said, "And I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more."

On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification. “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said.

At this point we do not know who the person or persons are and Justin is talking about "root causes".

[C750X]

I was joking man... it was Justin Beiber that did those things.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Looking forward to the daily 'Omg look what JT said!' updates.

The latest: He said, 'Root causes'...

Oooooh... Wow.... Gee.... Very high impact there. Lol.

[Gurn]

"On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification. “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said."

So did Justin "justify" the bombing or did he just say it is important to find the root cause? If it was to try to find the root cause is that not just a different way to say find the motive?

Big woop about nothing in terms of what was said.

[aGENT]

"On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification. “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said."

So did Justin "justify" the bombing or did he just say it is important to find the root cause? If it was to try to find the root cause is that not just a different way to say find the motive?

Big woop about nothing in terms of what was said.

[ronthecivil]

Gordie forbid we look in to why crazies feel the need to blow up innocent people and see if there's anything we can do as a society to minimize/mitigate possible future occurrences

THIS is what the Cons have decided to attack him on...?

[aGENT]

If this is the best the Cons can do, they best start packing now.

I don't know what's more humorous, that the Cons thought it was actually a worthwhile attack or that Wet did.

Someone might want to remind the Cons that this tactic, particularly when it lacks merit, can just as easily backfire as spectacularly as it has worked for them in the past.

It has a very good chance of not only causing people to completely tune them out but actually create a negative backlash for being hate and fear mongering douches.

[Wetcoaster]

Looking forward to the daily 'Omg look what JT said!' updates.

The latest: He said, 'Root causes'...

Oooooh... Wow.... Gee.... Very high impact there. Lol.

[hockeyfan87]

Just a general question. Can Quebec not signing the constitution be treated in a similar manner to how the Soviet Union didn't sign the Geneva Convention? JT said the best Prime Ministers of Canada come from Quebec seems like this should happened a long time ago.

I'd like to know how JT responds to the unequal representation of the west in the Senate. How can anyone in the west get behind a politician that defends BC having fewer seats than New Brunswick?

[Wetcoaster]

If this is the best the Cons can do, they best start packing now.

I don't know what's more humorous, that the Cons thought it was actually a worthwhile attack or that Wet did.

Someone might want to remind the Cons that this tactic, particularly when it lacks merit, can just as easily backfire as spectacularly as it has worked for them in the past.

It has a very good chance of not only causing people to completely tune them out but actually create a negative backlash for being hate and fear mongering douches.

[Jägermeister]

Justin is just barely on the job as Liberal leader and he is back at it again with his "I know what i said but that is not what i meant shtick." What a doofus.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper sharply criticized new Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for trying "to rationalize or make excuses" for whoever was responsible for the bombings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon that killed three and injured over 100 people.

Harper, who was commenting from London where he attended the funeral of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher this morning, took issue with Trudeau suggesting during a media interview that "the root causes" of the motivation for the bombing should be examined.

The right way to respond Harper said is to “condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible. And that's what this government would do if ever faced with such actions."

Harper had not been asked specifically about Trudeau's remarks. But he made it clear he wanted to comment on an interview that CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge did with Trudeau, which aired Tuesday night on The National. In the interview, Mansbridge asked Trudeau what he would do if he were prime minister on the day the bombings occurred.

Trudeau replied, after saying he would offer help and condolences, that "over the coming days" it would be necessary to "look at root causes." He continued, "We don't know if it was terrorism, or a single crazy, or a domestic issue or a foreign issue — all those questions. But there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society."

Trudeau finished by saying that it was important not to "marginalize people even further who already feel like they are enemies of society rather than people who have hope for the future."

Trudeau spoke to Mansbridge on Monday, only two hours after the news of the Boston bombing. His reply to Mansbridge's query about what he would do was made an hour before the Prime Minister's Office issued a statement. Trudeau's initial remarks about condolences and an offer to help were the same as Harper's reaction, although Trudeau went on to talk about possible causes.

Clarifies remarks

On Wednesday, after a meeting with his caucus, Trudeau clarified his remarks when asked by a reporter what he meant by "root causes."

"Obviously, we have to make sure that as we move forward we look at creating a safe community, a safe country, a safe world for all citizens and all individuals and that happens both with security and with, with a significant commitment to peace, as highlighted in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Trudeau said.

After question period Wednesday, Trudeau went quickly to the microphone in the foyer of the House of Commons to make a comment in English and one in French.

First, he said that he'd just been handed an account of what he called "the prime minister lashing out."

"I really hope Mr. Harper rethinks the extents and the lengths he is willing to go to personally attack people and to politicize tragedies like that," Trudeau said.

The controversy over Trudeau's remarks is reminiscent of the firestorm after comments former prime minister Jean Chretien made a year after the 9/11 attacks, although Chretien was much more explicit about what might have motivated those that hijacked planes with the intention of crashing them into buildings.

In a 2002 interview with Mansbridge, Chretien said, "And I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world and necessarily will be looked upon as being arrogant and self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more."

On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification. “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said.

At this point we do not know who the person or persons are and Justin is talking about "root causes".

[aGENT]

The point is Trudeau said something idiotic yet again, was criticized, ran back to his handlers and then clarified what that what he said was not what he meant. As soon as Justin gets off script it all blows up in his face. He has inherited his name from his father and his good looks and charm from his mother but unfortunately he also seems to have inherited his intellect from his mother as well.

In this case we do not yet know any details of the perpetrator(s) of the bombing. It was an incredibly dumb comment to make not only at this time but more to the point there is no excuse for the killing and maiming of innocents in the manner in which this bombing went down at any time.

Harper's view is the only approach when innocent people are killed and maimed in such a fashion. There is no room for understanding. It is quite unusual that I actually agree with Harper on a law and order or justice system issue but I am with him 100% on his approach:

“When you see this kind of action, when you see this kind of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes,” Harper said.

“You condemn it categorically and to the extent that you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible and that is what this government would do if it ever was faced with such actions.”

On Wednesday, Trudeau’s comments were fodder for the government in the Commons as Conservative MP Stella Ambler called on the Liberal leader to provide clarification

.

“There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians,” Ambler said.

That sums it up IMHO.

We have seen this in the past and it has become a trend. Trudeau is continuing to prove he is not not the sharpest knife in the drawer and is wont to put his his mouth in gear before engaging his clearly limited intellect.

This is not an isolated incident and the LPC kept him insulated and protected during the leadership race before his coronation as leader. Now he is out in the real world of politics and politics is a blood sport like it or not.

It is Justin's go to strategy - say something stupid and then "Well I know what I said but that is not what I meant." He has fallen back on this several times in the past.

In November 2010 he said he thought Albertans who were in charge were ruining Canada and it would be best to have Quebeckers running things.

In November 2010, Trudeau told a Quebec television show that he was tired of Albertans running the country and that, whether it was Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney, Canada is better off when Quebecers are running the country.

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau said in French to interviewer Patrick Lagace on the Tele-Quebec program Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters).

Lagace then asked Trudeau if he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans?"

Trudeau replied: "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us."

Trudeau specifically named prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, Chretien and Paul Martin but also included Progressive Conservative Mulroney on his list of great Quebec prime ministers of the last century.

http://cnews.canoe.c...2/20377596.html

And the response when he came under fire for those comments? Trudeau and his strategists have apologized and tried to spin the comments.

Liberal leadership contender and Montreal-area MP Justin Trudeau says he is sorry for controversial remarks he made in an interview about Alberta politicians.

“I’m sorry I said what I said,” The Globe and Mail reported him as saying Friday. “I’m here to serve.”

In a six-minute scrum with reporters in Vancouver, he said he made a mistake in associating the Harper government with a specific region of Canada, according to media reports

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

In February 2012 he talked about a Canada governed by Harper and the CPC as not his sort of Canada and that the best thing to do would be for him to leave with a separate Quebec. His father must have been turning over in his grave at that statement.

In a French-language interview in February, Trudeau took issue with the social conservative policies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government and indicated he would be in favour of Quebec separating if they continued.

“I always say that if, some time, I believed that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper, and it was going against abortion, and it was going against same-sex marriage, and that it was moving backwards in 10,000 different ways, maybe I would think about making Quebec a country,” said the Montreal-area MP in the weekend interview with Radio-Canada.

...

“When Quebec is not involved in the governance of this country, this country moves too much toward the right,” he said in the radio interview. “It’s not necessarily that Canadians don’t have the same values as us Quebecers. 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 and it saddens me a great deal (to see what’s happening now).”

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And his defence at that time? Trudeau later sought to defend himself in a bizarre press conference in which he spoke in the third-person.

“The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country because the question is ridiculous,” Trudeau said. “I live this country in my bones in every breath I take, and I’m not going to stand here and somehow defend that I actually do love Canada because we know I love Canada.”

As Matt Gurney of the National Post wrote in an article titled "Anti-Alberta Trudeau interview reminds Canadians why the Liberals were voted out":

The Trudeau camp responded quickly to the revelations. In a statement put out on Thursday afternoon, they said, “The Conservatives are using out of context statements made years ago in a long interview … We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians.”

Problem: It was Mr. Trudeau himself making the divisive comments, saying Canada didn’t work when Albertans have power, and that the country belongs either to one province, or just Liberals from that province. Mr. Trudeau may feel the quotes were taken out of context, but they still [ital]sound[endital] astonishingly divisive. You can’t accuse someone else of playing the politics of division when your own party, twice in two days, has treated Albertans as somehow unfit to hold office in their own federal government.

These comments just don’t sound divisive (though Lordy, they do). They also sound achingly familiar. This is exactly how many Canadians suspect the Liberals really feel, deep down inside: The only good Canadian is a Liberal. Everyone else is either an American or an Albertan (one suspects that, to many Liberals, this is a distinction without a difference). The Liberals can embrace the oil sands all they want. Until they stop treating the people who live in the general vicinity of the oil sands as enemy aliens out to rob the Grits of their rightful, if temporarily interrupted, rule over Canada, they’re not going to improve much on their third-party status.

Yes, the comments are from a couple of years ago, which may help partially offset the oh-so weak response put out by the Trudeau team (though we’re not talking unearthed university-era debate club stuff here — this was Trudeau speaking in his capacity as a Liberal MP only two years ago). And the Liberals have been doing okay lately. Polls show they have a shot to come back to second place. Maybe even compete for government.

It could happen. But they’ll need more than a new leader and some new policies before that can happen. They need a full-on attitude adjustment. Despite all their talk about renewal, it’s not clear that’s in the making.

http://fullcomment.n...were-voted-out/

The arrogance and entitlement just shines through, eh? Along with the lack of intellect and inability to think logically and string coherent thoughts together. Then he has to go check with his handlers and try to explain what he said was not what he meant.

Thus far the CPC have Justin Trudeau pegged quite accurately as they noted in their recent ad.

Justin Trudeau... in way over his head.

It seems the Liberal party has chosen to send a boy (and a not very bright nor experienced boy at that) to do a man's work. The CPC managed to carve up Martin, Dion and Ignatieff - all of whom were much superior to Justin Trudeau in all respects except maybe their surnames, boyish good looks and hair style.

For the CPC it seems Justin Trudeau will be the gift that keeps on giving unless the LPC can find some way to wrap him up in a protective cocoon and only let him out when he has a script in hand. Thinking on his feet is quite obviously not one of Justin Trudeau's strengths and add to that a lack of political savvy.

Mind you Justin is correct in one thing he has promised to do - he says he will do politics differently. Unfortunately his way looks to be an unmitigated disaster based on performance to date.

[aGENT]

The theme of the attack ads seems to have resonated with voters and this latest is the CPC continuing that strategy.

We heard the same thing about the themed ads about Dion (Stephane Dion is not a leader) and Iganatieff ("He did not come back for you" and his "reckless coalition") - they were going to fail and backfire. They did not.

The key is that a theme must have some basis and in this case Justin Trudeau is in way over his head according to all the evidence thus far. And he continues to supply further evidence.

[Wetcoaster]

Just a general question. Can Quebec not signing the constitution be treated in a similar manner to how the Soviet Union didn't sign the Geneva Convention? JT said the best Prime Ministers of Canada come from Quebec seems like this should happened a long time ago.

I'd like to know how JT responds to the unequal representation of the west in the Senate. How can anyone in the west get behind a politician that defends BC having fewer seats than New Brunswick?

[TOMapleLaughs]

The point is Trudeau said something idiotic yet again, was criticized, ran back to his handlers and then clarified what that what he said was not what he meant. As soon as Justin gets off script it all blows up in his face. He has inherited his name from his father and his good looks and charm from his mother but unfortunately he also seems to have inherited his intellect from his mother as well... Blah blah blah etc.

[Wetcoaster]

Is that really the best they can do to attack him?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fixing the problem that leads to actions like that better than just punishing the perpetrators after the fact?

Sure we don't know the issues that lead to what happened yet, but once we do should it not be a priority to try and remedy them?

And I don't know what you're talking about with your whole "I know what i said but that is not what i meant shtick" statement. He clarified his statements, he didn't attempt to change what he was saying.

What actually stood out to me as the stupidest statement in that entire article was

Yeah, don't try to figure out the causes for why things happen, just deal with them after they do happen. We'll solve a lot of issues like that

(For the record, I'm not even sold that I'm going to vote for Trudeau, but seeing stuff like this just annoys the crap out of me)

[aGENT]

What actually stood out to me as the stupidest statement in that entire article was

Yeah, don't try to figure out the causes for why things happen, just deal with them after they do happen. We'll solve a lot of issues like that

(For the record, I'm not even sold that I'm going to vote for Trudeau, but seeing stuff like this just annoys the crap out of me)

[TOMapleLaughs]

Good take on why the usual Con attack ad strategy is doomed to fail.

Justin Trudeau’s celebrity status harder to attack: Tim Harper

History shows us that opponents have difficulty quickly diminishing the lustre of politicians who are seen as celebrities.

By:Tim Harper National Affairs, Published on Wed Apr 17 2013

OTTAWA

The reason it is difficult for the Conservatives to find any traction in mocking Justin Trudeau’s pretend striptease isn’t necessarily because the Liberal leader was raising money for charity.

The Conservative problem is that Trudeau did a pretend striptease at a fundraiser in the first place.

The reason he was out on the catwalk — as opposed to a middle-aged Conservative male in a dark suit usually found reading talking points before Question Period — is that he is what passes as a celebrity in Canada today.

The Conservatives, and New Democrats, are forgetting that when someone is attacked for their “celebrity status,” it usually just fuels their celebrity status.

So when NDP House leader Nathan Cullen says Trudeau “is famous for being famous,” he is actually playing to Trudeau’s strength.

None of Trudeau’s celebrity, derived from a famous name, a public life and a willingness to be unconventional in a very conventional milieu, means he will be a good party leader or a prime minister one day.

But it does mean it’s counterproductive to “attack” him for doing things that draw attention to himself. He has done that better than anything else in his short political career.

We saw this play out, on a much larger tableau, in the United States a mere five years ago.

A frustrated John McCain took direct aim at Barack Obama’s celebrity status during the 2008 presidential campaign in a disastrous ad that has obvious parallels and even less subtlety than the Conservative ad released this week.

This is not to compare Obama and Trudeau. The footage in the McCain commercial showed Obama speaking to a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin, a world away from the leader of Canada’s third party packing a hotel ballroom in downtown Ottawa.

“He’s the biggest celebrity in the world,” the McCain ad stated. “But is he ready to lead?”

It showed Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, flash bulbs and adoring crowds chanting his name.

It went after Obama in much the way that Cullen’s line tries to turn Trudeau into a Kardashian or a Bieber.

The Conservative ad uses stardust to spell Trudeau’s name. “We know Justin Trudeau has a famous last name, but does he have the experience to be prime minister?”

Both the Republicans and Conservatives took aim at what they thought was fanzine coverage of their opponent, and both claimed those who attended rallies were fans, not voters, “fans fawning over the The One,” as McCain’s camp put it.

The Trudeau performance that evening was cringeworthy for the handful of men in attendance at the Canadian Liver Foundation dinner, but we were hardly the target group.

Conservatives say the point wasn’t that he was raising money for charity. Everyone who attended the dinner was doing that, one senior official told me, “but Laureen Harper didn’t get up to pretend to take off her clothes.”

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt was also there and she hit on the salient point that was a subject of discussion that evening — the gender double standard.

She is right when she says the conversation would have been much different had a female politician done a mock striptease in a room full of men.

Indeed, it would likely kill the career of any female politician who ventured into that territory, but Trudeau had gotten away with it because, well, he is Trudeau, a celebrity.

Two decades ago, a political woman did get away with something, because she, too, was seen as unconventional.

Then-justice minister Kim Campbell, destined to be a short-lived prime minister, posed in an iconic photo, bare shouldered behind her Queen’s Counsel robes and suddenly found herself known as the Madonna of the House of Commons.

Years later, at an exhibition that featured the photo, Campbell explained the circumstances, that she had just picked up her robes, to another former prime minister.

“Ah, and what were you doing before you picked them up?” responded Pierre Trudeau, an unconventional reply from an unconventional man.

That is likely the last mock striptease in the younger Trudeau’s career. His d’Artagnan look will likely now be shelved and he should hang up the boxing gloves.

But if he becomes too conventional, he will be playing into the hands of his opponents because Canadians are desperate for a little colour in a federal political palette awash in grey.

Every time he is criticized for being a celebrity, his political stock is sure to rise.