The Shotgun Blog
« Blogging for Dollars | Main | Now *That's* a Post »
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Some excerpts from today's edition of The Spectator--my blog which is linked to this post)
top story
The Montréal Gazette hasn’t broken an Adscam-related story (today’s front page is full of dieting news and hockey-madness) but, over at the Citizen and the National Post, Sheldon Alberts buys a copy of Bob Woodward’s book and reveals how, behind the political spin, governments operate:
“The book recounts how Ms. Rice's ‘counterpart in Canada’ informed her during a telephone call of Mr. Chrétien’s March 17, 2003, decision to stay out of the war.
The Chrétien aide reportedly told Ms. Rice, "Sorry, we can't be part of this," but sought to dispel the administration's concerns that the Liberals might use the war to fuel anti-American sentiment in Canada.
The Chrétien advisor "promised to keep their rhetoric at a low boil -- just enough to satisfy Canadian public opinion, but without being belligerent or provocative," Mr. Woodward writes.”
Speaking of how governments really operate, check out today’s lead by BC’s finest political columnist, Vaughn Palmer, “The B.C. Liberals insisted Monday that they'd always meant to tell people about the 900-year extension clause in the BC Rail deal.”
(Runner-up)
Also from the CanWest stable, Don Martin reports, “The Children's Aid Society has launched an investigation into whether the parents of 14-year-old Karim Khadr are guilty of child abuse for counselling him to become a terrorist. …During a CBC television interview in March, Karim's 23-year-old sister, Zaynab, expressed her support for suicide bombing."We believe in dying by the hand of your enemy," she said. "My father had always wished that he would be killed ... he would be killed for the sake of Allah. I remember when we were very young he would say, if you guys love me, pray for me that I get jihaded, which is killed.''Karim's mother said she would be happy if her children died the same way.
"You know we are promised that we go to Heaven," Ms. Elsamnah said.”
top international story
The Washington Post buries but NY Times leads with, “King Abdullah of Jordan dealt a rebuff to President Bush on Monday, abruptly putting off his visit to Washington scheduled for later this week. Jordanian officials said the visit had become impossible in light of Mr. Bush's recent support for Israel's territorial claims in the West Bank.” The last cancellation—Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, unhappy that the US was not pressuring Israel—came just before 9/11.
(Runner-up)The Washington Post reports, “The U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda is intent on launching terrorist attacks in this country sometime before the November elections, a conclusion that yesterday prompted the Department of Homeland Security to announce that it is increasing precautions in a number of areas.”
The column I wish I had written
Perhaps because he cares more about Liberal fortunes, Jim Travers in the Toronto Star is better on Paul Martin than is John Ibbitson in the Globe. Maybe that's not the reason: Aside from not being able to read the polls, Val Sears in the Ottawa proffers weak and inane advice. Jeff Simpson goes on about the politicization of press releases; Andrew Cohen, in the Citizen, reaches deep into history, comparing Martin to Anthony Eden; I dunno Andrew—Eden won an election and formed a majority government.
Travers warns Martin against an early election: “First as heir-apparent, and now as Prime Minister, Martin talked so long and so loudly about grand plans that they now sound like just so much same-old, same-old….Worse still, the up-close impression is that this government is disorganized, overtly political — something even Jean Chrétien, the quintessential political prime minister, managed to avoid — and that too much talent was left out of cabinet simply to make it look different. None of this can be turned around fast enough for an early election…. he will risk both power and the opportunity to make a lasting difference if he rushes into a spring election, or even an unusual summer campaign, before convincing Canadians that he is more than an ideas engine hooked to a faulty transmission.“Over at the Post, the editorial board wades in with some advice for Stephen Harper, none of which is likely to be new to him. In fairness to denizens of the Don Mills peanut gallery, they don’t advocate bringing ex-Mike Harris porkers on board the team.William Watson, his tag line in the Gazette says, teaches economics at McGill University. He’s a fine writer but, judging from today’s political advice to Harper, he should not give up his day job.
THE COLUMN I’M GLAD I DIDN’T WRITE
Tom Walkom in the Toronto Star lauds Mrs Khadr for “standing by her man”—a collaborator of bin Laden; equates her unpopular political views to Stockwell Day’s; and says her rant about homosexuality would, in normal times, make her a Conservative voter. The mushiness may be contagious: lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners filed a brief to the US Supreme Court advocating they be treated as Canada treats terrorism suspects. (The Calgary Sun’s Licia Corbella upbraids Paul Martin, "I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree," Martin said last week. Views are one thing, Mr. Martin, terrorist activity, quite another. And treasonous behaviour should be grounds to have citizenship revoked.”)Meanwhile, at UBC, Iranian human-rights activist Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, also has a different take from Walkom’s, "Those who, on the pretext of cultural relativity, refuse to execute democracy and respect human rights are, in fact, ossified authoritarian dictators…Democracy and human rights are a worthy cause in all cultures and all races. Terror, violence, torture and humiliation of human beings in every society and every state is an unworthy cause."
Own-goal of the Day
« Mulroney défend Charest » (and, incidentally, his legacy) on page one of La Presse
Norman Spector
Posted by Norman Spector on April 20, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345ea8c269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :
Comments
I was only 11 or 12 at the time, so perhaps somebody could refresh my memory...or fill me in
But - isn't it starting to look like John Turner all over again?
I quote from the canada.com website on Mr.Turner's turn in the PMO,
"John Turner was a Prime Minister in waiting for too long. By the time John Turner had waited out the Trudeau era and was elected Leader of the Liberal Party to become Prime Minister in 1984, the country was fed up with Liberal government. Turner seemed out of touch, made a number of political gaffes, including calling an early election, and the Conservatives won a massive majority"
http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primeminister/p/pmturner.htm
Now - for all my fine friends in media - who would like nothing more than to see the end of the reign of error of the Liberals - it would be very good PR for the conservatives to harp on this a bit.
Maybe somebody could do a compare and contrast kind of op-ed.
I personally can't remember what Turner personally did that was too awful (being as I was 12) - and it always struck me as strange that somebody who was so obviously grooming his entire life to be PM would be so quickly cast out of office.
Has anybody else made this comparison yet - and if so did I miss it?
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-04-20 10:45:59 AM
Hmmmm - The first hit I see on this was a blog from a month ago. In mainstream however - this idea has just started percolating up through people's consciousness.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1081807811479&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907626796%20%20http://www.rabble.ca
"Turner's shadow dogs PM
Analogies are imperfect. History rarely repeats itself. Still, as Paul Martin flits frenetically across the country insisting he is not campaigning for election, there are eerie echoes of another prime minister at another time.
That other prime minister was John Turner. The other time — 1984."
Posted by: Meaghan Walker-Williams | 2004-04-20 10:50:39 AM
Meaghan, I think there is a parallel to be drawn with Turner - and, tragically, I was a bit more than twelve at the time - and I am also certain Martin is aware of it. The issues, however are a bit different.
Turner was carrying the freight of the Trudeau era in which the nation was, for better or worse, transformed. Part of that transformation was the reduction in the status of the Canadian business class which was Turner's natural home. But, as much as anything, Turner ran up against a politician in Mulroney who was far better at the game. During that election Mulroney boxed smart and made poor Turner look as though he had peaked when he went dancing with Princess Margaret back in the days of the Canadian Raj.
Martin's problems are rather different. Chretien did not transform anything. Rather he presided over the process in which the Liberal Party began to completely identify its own interests with Canada's. "What's good for the Liberal Party is good for Canada." has become the mantra which underlies the corruption and the scandal.
The question is whether Martin, faced with a rather less formidable rival than Mulroney, will take the opportunity to clean up or if he will follow the Herle line and attempt to paint the Conservative party as somehow "unCanadian".
Sadly I fear Martin doesn't have the backbone required to clean up and will try to scare Canadians into voting Liberal. Win or lose, this would be a tragic mistake for Martin, the Liberal Party and for Canada because it treats Canadians with such utter contempt.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2004-04-20 11:30:24 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.