Cross-posted at my blog.
So, yes, I did the four hour vigil again last night in front of the telly. It was a little more entertaining than the previous night. And, yes, I enjoyed it. Here are some of my random thoughts:
Is it just me or was Jack Layton the only one whose microphone ever got cut off? Wait, let me put it another way. The only speaker whose micrphone NEVER got cut off was Paul Martin. I kind of thought he talked too long at least a couple of times. So why didn’t he get cut off? I could be wrong, but it did seem a little suspicious to me.
I really chuckled at one point when Stephen Harper actually started a comment off with the word “Notwithstanding”! Priceless… I think an ad should be made of that.
Also, did that spaz really call Martin a flip-flopper??? How HILARIOUS is that? I swear, Harper really needs to hire campaign advisors who DIDN’T work for Bush. It’s ridiculous.
As much as the pundits think Martin’s tirade on Duceppe was “staged”, I thought it was pretty powerful myself. That’s a clip I could watch again and again and, at the end, still go “Yeah!”
I’m usually never that impressed with Paul Martin, but he held his own pretty well last night considering he was being constantly bashed from three sides. Maybe the other leaders should consider that it could get him a sympathy vote? I don’t think people really feel comfortable watching that kind of incessant bashing. They said as much when the topic of the behaviour during Question Period on the floor came up. But I’m female, so maybe it’s just my nature to want to defend the person being attacked…
I’m glad Martin got the dig in on Harper’s speech from 1997 about the country in theory and in practice. Too bad most people wouldn’t have understood it.
I did pick up on something though, and I’ll make a prediction right now that the Martin people have uncovered something juicy about who has donated to Harper’s leadership campaign. Did you catch that part? When Martin asked Harper to tell who contributed? It sounded to me very much like a warning that they’ve got something on him. I wonder when they’ll let that information “leak” out. I can’t wait to find out, I’ve been convinced for a while now that American money is making it’s way to Harper somehow. If the Liberals have something like THAT? Well, say goodbye to Mr. Harper and hello to a Liberal majority.
You know, this could make for a juicy campaign after all… Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?
Thanks for your coverage of the election. Please keep us informed. It would be very interesting in American money could be shown to be supporting the Conservatives…
.
TORONTO (CP) Dec. 16 — When United States Ambassador David Wilkins warned the prime minister to stop chest-thumping, it was more than an off-the-cuff remark amplified in the heat of a federal election campaign, social activist Maude Barlow says.
It represented the latest example of American conservatism creeping into Canadian politics and posing a risk to our national values of tolerance and independence, the national chairwoman of the Council of Canadians says.
“Absolutely, and it’s just this notion that you can make it public as ambassador … that you have a right to interfere in Canadian politics and bring this brand of conservatism north,” Barlow said in a phone interview from Hong Kong, where she is attending the World Trade Organization meeting.
“An ambassador’s role in the past has always been in the background, you work quietly in the background to influence policy and improve relations between your countries. You don’t use that position to impose your brand of political conservatism or social conservatism on a democratic country.”
Canadian PM Paul Martin points to Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe during the leaders election debate in French in Vancouver, BC. REUTERS/Paul Chiasson/PoolIn a poll given to The Canadian Press, 58 per cent of respondents indicated they are concerned that America’s increasing conservatism is a threat to the Canadian way of life.
“It says to me that Canadians are worried about the influence of particularly the religious right, and that kind of fundamental social conservatism that we see in the Bush administration moving into Canada,” Barlow said.
U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins warned Canada, it was risked damaging to one of the world’s best relationships by focusing on short-term political gain.
“It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner constantly,” Mr. Wilkins said in a speech to the Canadian Club at the Chateau Laurier Hotel in Ottawa.
Stephen Clarkson, a professor political economy, argues the White House has set its sights on regime change for the first time in North America since John Kennedy’s battle with former PM John Diefenbaker in 1963.
With supporters from the National Rifle Association to Friends of the Family taking a public stance against recent Canadian policy, Prof. Clarkson argues the Bush administration is looking for a change on Parliament Hill. But unlike in the days of JFK, he predicts such a move will surely backfire.
Unlike Mr. Kennedy, The Bush administration is extremely unpopular in Canada. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 75 per cent of Canadians say they have a less favourable view of the U.S. since Mr. Bush’s re-election.
But, Prof. Clarkson says such a stance will surely give the Liberals a boost.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
I know they’re all holding back on the ‘nasty’ campaign strategies (and signage for that matter) until after the season of peace and joy and love is over. The pundits here in Ottawa have been lamenting over the lack of barbs and whatnot, saying it’s been pretty boring so far. I do think the gloves will be off starting January 1.