The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Thank God for the Western Standard
Belinda Stronach's act of treachery may save this government from defeat in Thursday's vote. Talk radio in Calgary is buzzing with anger -- including talk of Western separatism. I can only imagine what it's like in French Quebec.
Thank God for the Western Standard. I don't say that just as publisher, but as a conservative who would be driven mad with the injustice and corruption that has infected our government, were it not for this magazine's editorial broadsides as a way to fight back every two weeks. This isn't just a magazine, and it's not just a job for we lucky few who work here -- it's a way to fight back, an especially important way when the Conservative Party is undone as it was today.
I did a quick interview with CBC Newsworld this morning that should be running for most of the day, if you want to see me do my best not to swear on TV.
Posted by Ezra Levant on May 17, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thank God for the Western Standard:
» Stronach crosses floor, takes Cabinet post from Being American in T.O.
May 17 - Thank goodness she lost the bid for CPC leadership (Stronach crosses the floor, joins Liberal cabinet.) I'm thinking some other strong things, too. 13:44 - CTV has a brief item on Harper's response in which attributed her... [Read More]
Tracked on 2005-05-17 12:12:10 PM
Ezra Levant: You are totally correct in stating that the magazine serves a vital function as a voice for serious conservative thought in Canada.
The politically immorality of Liberalism and the odiferous defection of Stronach are twin illustrations of what confronts conservatives in this country. The entrenched public regime fights to stay in power with all tools available, including the recruitment of the dilettante daughter of a failed Liberal candidate.
Posted by: Barry Stagg | 2005-05-17 10:28:03 AM
I'm just gobsmacked that Stronach's treacherous nature comes as a surprise to anyone. Look at who she's dating, for crying out loud. Birds of a feather, and all that.
Posted by: Sean | 2005-05-17 10:36:41 AM
Belinda Stronach raised a few eyebrows in the hinterland when she decided to run for the Conservative leadership as a virtual nobody. Unwilling to start at the bottom and work her way up she expected to be handed the top job because she's daddy's little girl. Since that hasn't played out she decided to do a business deal with the Liberals to improve her political capital since, after all, her motivation isn't public service it's ambition. Any fool knows that. Had she not run for the Conservative leadership and not been elected to parliament and therefore becoming one more warm body to add to the Liberal vote count on Thursday there is absolutely no way she would occupy the cabinet post she now holds. As for her self denied leadership aspirations of the Liberal party I would suggest the Liberals pay close scrutiny to her initials.
Posted by: Brion Pollon | 2005-05-17 10:40:00 AM
Alberta should immediately begin the move toward separation. You should announce a program for setting up your own provincial police force and your own medicare. You should also unilaterally declare the Gun Law null and void and declare your non-support for the Kyoto Protocol.
If you have to force a provincial election to bring this about then get to it. I will do everything I can to support you, including moving back to Alberta. Every vote counts.
If the Liberals win the next federal election we can all watch Quebec separate. Then Alberta. I will enjoy watching Ontario try to deal with this. Goodbye Canada.
This is a sad day.
Posted by: John Crittenden | 2005-05-17 10:40:37 AM
Be careful Ezra; you're liable to pull a muscle patting yourself on the back like that...;-)
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-17 10:43:02 AM
I'm not sure if the Conservatives are "undone" by events today. I still think Cadman and Kilgour vote with the Conservatives. And this move can actually work to Harper's advantage. Harper has already hit it on the head: ambition over principle. Just a few days ago she voted with the caucus to topple the government in a vote of non-confidence - as perceived by the opposition. Nothing principled about this move. A shallow politician whose ambition led her to the Liberals. Business as usual for them.
Posted by: The Cyber Menace | 2005-05-17 10:43:35 AM
It's just possible that principle is what's driving Stronach here; she doesn't like the way Harper's getting into bed with the separatists, the way he flip-flopped on supporting the budget (which her constitueants apparently like), she's always been a progressive conservative, as opposed to a social conservative...
For what it's worth I dislike both Harper and Martin in about equal measure, but Stronach's rifht about one thing; the Conservative Party will never be a serious alternative until they build credible support in Quebec and move away from the more reactionary, American style social conservative elements in the party.
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-17 10:50:02 AM
Wow. I've been tied up in meetings and courses all day, and I get into the elevator at lunchtime only to read that Belinda has left the party. I wish I could say I hadn't seen it coming, but I think we all know that this was bound to happen. Harper is ordering his party to present a united front on all issues, and she isn't willing to toe the party line. It hurts that she's picked this time to do it, when we need all the numbers we can get, but she really didn't believe the policies of the party anyway, and she'll be happier with the Liberals.
I'd still like to bitch slap her, though.
Posted by: RightGirl | 2005-05-17 11:19:12 AM
My view is that in the long run Stronach has done a favour for the conservative party. She has been divisive from the first day she was involved. Harper was precisely correct when he pointed out about her leadership ambitions in the conservative party.
Martin has just found his own successor whether he knows it or not.
Good riddance Librano Belinda!
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2005-05-17 11:19:18 AM
Couple of points.
-Better now than the day of the vote. Show just what kind of people the Liberals attract.
-Re: "...the Conservative Party will never be a serious alternative until they build credible support in Quebec and move away from the more reactionary, American style social conservative elements in the party."
It is hard to find a starting point for such unabashed hogwash, but I'll try. If the Conservative lack of representation in Quebec is such a huge deal, look at the Liberal numbers in Alta and Sask, and in the next election they will be wiped out in Que.
As far as the American social conservative influence, look at the polls in Canada; well above a majority support a traditional definition of marriage, BUT with civil union legislation to allow the same legal rights as heterosexual couples(transfer of property, spousal benefits, inheritance, etc.) By the way, attempting to slander a political party by referring to it as Amercian style is laughable. Do conservatives refer to the Fibs and speNDP as Norwegian or Swedish-style (i.e.: failed welfare-for-all nanny-staters)?
Posted by: Shawn | 2005-05-17 11:27:10 AM
I know that many people are talking separation out of the emotion, yet there is a real structural possibility that Canada will cease to exist in the next two decades.
I would like the magazine to take a deeper look into historical conditions attributing to secession. My theory is that when central power expands it's obligations on a vast territory, it eventually comes to the point where no longer can fulfill those obligation due to the overwhelming cost. The deals with the provinces and so called "new deal" with cities is just a symptom of what is coming. It is the rise of local interests that eventually will take over the notion of being Canadian. The logic of devolution is illustrated in Adam Smith " The Wealth of Nations":
"Were the streets of London to be lighted and paved at the expense of the national treasury, is there any probability that they would be so well lighted and paved as they are at present, or even at so small expense. The expense, beside, instead of being raised by a local tax upon the inhabitants of each particular street, parish or district in London would, in this case, be defrayed out of general revenue of the state, and would consequently be raised by a tax upon all the inhabitants of the kingdom, of whom the grater part derived no sort of benefit from the lighting and paving of the streets of London."
Even people of Quebec may come to the conclusion that they better serve themselves then being served by Ottawa. Whether this view is right or wrong, it is not as important as perception of unfilled obligations (promises) by the federal government. Of course, there are additional factors to trigger Quebec separation and if and when Quebec separates it will set on fire secessionist movements across Canada. Mainly because secession has the same infectious characteristic as any other political turbulence. Secessions as revolutions are coming in unstoppable waves.
Please, also understand that as socialism and big central government was a characteristic of industrial era, decentralization and (peer-to-peer) individual economic relations are associated with the information age.
Posted by: Mariusz Kolakowski | 2005-05-17 11:33:49 AM
So, I've lost track. Who's the social moderate(read: only sane member) in the Conservative bedroom now? Keddy?
Anyone wanna take bets on when he'll see the light and flee from the troglodyte party? I'm going to take an under of 30 days.
Posted by: Briguy | 2005-05-17 11:38:14 AM
Actually, Belinda is expressing her natural frustration at a Conservative party that has shown itself to be almost Liberal-like in its lack of prinicples and lust for power.
Those of us who long for a credible alternative to the Liberals - an opposition party that respects the culture and needs of Central Canada - share Ms Stronach's frustration. But not, sadly, her cushy new patronage job.
Posted by: Get Real | 2005-05-17 11:38:56 AM
I don't think Paul Martin is any less a cheap, shifty-eyed crook than Richard Nixon was. There simply is no way a person with even a primitive sense of right and wrong can think about this -- never mind the rest -- without feeling sick, and a compulsion to bathe.
Nobody would expect Paul Martin to feel a twinge of shame at the prospect of selling a senior office, but Stronach doesn't appear at all embarrassed to be publicly bought. I guess she really was a Liberal the whole time.
GOD! How can *anybody* apologize for this sleazy, greasy excuse for a government? It's *actually become trite* to say "What's it going to take?"
Posted by: Darrell | 2005-05-17 11:42:23 AM
I would like to make another point. Someone in the CPC has to take a hard look at candidate nomination process. Riding with smaller membership are vulnerable to hostile takeovers. It happen in my riding were I can not support my candidate as he in the past was against the merger, walked away from the board of directors when Stephen Harper took over leadership. I don't think the nominated candidate stands by CPC values, he never contributed to the party activity before the nomination and everything he represents are group of local elitists. I even got to a paranoiac point where I think he has become a candidate to make sure local liberal will win and bring money to the city as promised.
Posted by: Mariusz Kolakowski | 2005-05-17 11:47:08 AM
I agree with Robert. The right-wingers here are threatening to make the Conservatives as unelectable as sandle clad, tree-worshipers make the NDP, at least when the NDP was about union power one could understand what they wanted.
This blog is an advertisment for the unexamined life. The Liberals stole. How can the Conservatives be losing this? Get smart people.
"... the rise of local interests that eventually will take over the notion of being Canadian."
Hun? When has this not been the case?
A great American once said that all politics is local. And that's truer here than there. It was Trudeau that was trying, and failed, to end the long-standing Canadian practice of Provincial blackmail. Oh, I'm sorry. I mis-undertood. You were just trying to rationalize devolvion. What county is more de-centralized than Canada?
Posted by: John | 2005-05-17 12:02:44 PM
There is one thing that we ALL have to remember "all of them are self serving scum". Even if someone gets into politics to do 'good', by the time they are in a position to do any, they have had to comprise themselves so much that they become the same thing that they orig. hated.
Never trust ANY one who says they want to serve you - they just want to serve themselves, Belinda is just a little more obvious then some of the others
Posted by: darcy peer | 2005-05-17 12:07:20 PM
I posted some of this on Angry a few minutes ago...
Who cares about Belinda Stronach? Let her go.
I'm as mad as anyone right now and have said I will support Western separation. But let's not get carried away in the heat of the moment. Let's look at where we are.
In the next election the Bloq is going to pick up a lot of seats in Quebec. Everyone can agree on that. Where are these going to come from? Well, from the Liberals of course. All the votes in Quebec went to either the Bloq or the Liberals in the last election. So the Liberals are going to have to pick up those seats and a few more from somewhere. Where are they going to come from?
The Liberals may pick up a few in the Maritimes. Let's say they pick up a total of 5 from the Conservatives. Let's say Ontario stays the same and the Conservatives pick up two in Alberta. The sole objective of the Conservative Party should be to hold on to the seats they have.
I predict the Bloq will win 65 seats, perhaps even more, a pickup of at least 11 seats. I predict the Conservatives will win 96, a loss of 5 seats in the Maritimes and a pickup of two seats in Alberta. I predict the Liberals will lose 11 seats in Quebec and two in Alberta for a total loss of 13 seats. The result looks something like this:
Doesn't look too good for the Liberals to me. Can anyone show where I'm wrong? From the Conservatives in Ontario you say? I don't think so. Even if the Liberals take six from them it still leaves them short by 6 votes, not considering the independents. The Conservative/Bloq (new party in Canada?) can still control the house and can go to the Governor General at any time to request her support to form the government.
The only problem may lay in the ability of the Liberals to buy votes in Quebec. But I don't think this will happen, not after Gomery.
Posted by: John Crittenden | 2005-05-17 12:35:58 PM
"You love Paul Martin, precisely because he's every bit as dirty and worthless as you are..."
You don't know me very well, ebt...;-)
BUt thanks for showing us the mature, moderate, responsible face of teh Canadian right. People like you are the reason conservatism is in decline. And that's a shame...
And Shawn, I didn't refer to the whole party as being American style; I pointed out that some in the CPC appear to be emulating the worst traits of the American right. They's never appeal to the vast majority of Canadians that way.
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-17 1:13:09 PM
(note to self, rember to cheque spielling befour posting coments...)
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-17 1:20:15 PM
"You hate Harper because he's living proof that you could and should be something better than what you are."
If some lefty changed "Haper" to "Howard Dean" and said that, you'd turn blue screaming "ELITIST!!!!"
You're hurting our party saying things like that. Leave the hissy-fits to the SoCreds... Leave the CPC to the grown-ups.
Posted by: Ryan | 2005-05-17 1:46:54 PM
Congratulations Ezra on a great magazine! Please keep up the good work, as the CBC and the Globe and Mail have descended into new lows.
btw, I'm a reader on the East Coast, so I'm wondering is the 'Western' in Western Standard indicative of the Canadian West or Western Civilization?
Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-05-17 2:00:18 PM
"I pointed out that some in the CPC appear to be emulating the worst traits of the American right"
You don't know much about the American right, Hermit.
I have no problem with gay marriage. I disagree with Conservatives and Liberals who oppose it. But the difference between them and hate-mongers like Jerry Falwell is monumental.
Posted by: Toronto Conservative | 2005-05-17 2:34:51 PM
"But the difference between them and hate-mongers like Jerry Falwell is monumental." (Toronto COnservative)
There are a few (Cheryl Gallant, for example) who are just as bad, and they are, unfortunately, tainting the whole party.
I'm not saying its fair, I'm just saying that's the way it will be until the CP leadership takes a stronger stand.
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-17 3:45:07 PM
The worst may be yet to come. You can bet that Martin's little monkeys are scurrying around as fast as they can dangling bait in front of other CPC MPs in hopes of getting another defection or two. I would feel much more comfortable if I could hear Belinda's boy Peter come out and say where he stands these days.
The clock is ticking and we will see how much damage the Liberals can do with a couple more days. If the Thursday vote passes the budget, you can rest assured that the Liberals will quickly rebuild the natural lead that they maintain in Ontario with the extra months in office that will buy.
Harper should have voted them down months ago when he had the chance.
He who hesitates.......
Posted by: C.Morgan | 2005-05-17 4:00:20 PM
Cheryl Gallant! A beautiful woman; a conservative; a Canadian.
Cheryl Gallant; Love you, Cheryl!
Cheryl Gallant, a great Canadian; go Cheryl Gallant.
The strong lady from the Ottawa Valley.
Cheryl Gallant; go.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-17 5:04:52 PM
This site always makes me laugh. When some liberal MPs defected, one of you posted Winston Churchill, who changed parties, and you all treated those MPs as heroes. So someone defects the other way, and she's a "whore". you question why liberals pursue things like same-sex marriage since it wins them no votes, without once considering that maybe they believe in it. Only conservatives can believe in something, according to all of you.
You distort and ignore stories that don't correspond with your point of view,(i.e. Bush's corruption and the more recent Oil for Food revelations involving his administration) and you rage at and slander anyone who doesn't agree with you. Hilarious. You represent the worst in conservatives, and give conservatives a bad name, but you make me laugh, so for that I thank you.
Posted by: Bdillon | 2005-05-17 6:56:19 PM
No Bdillon - the
libs appreciate and thank you for your support:
- Adscam boondoggle
- HR boondoggle
- Gun boondoggle
- Shawinigate boondoggle
- Pepper on my steak boondoggle
- Somalia boondoggle
- BDC boondoggle
- G.G. spending boondoggle
- I'm on fire Fry/Grand Wizard Volpe/Binder Boy Boudria/Turncoat Brison/Furcoat Blondin/Bigmouth Andy/ Gags Gagliano - boondoggles all of them and its the conservatives that make you giggle?Go ahead Bdillon - pat your back and give yourself a cookie - you deserve it.
Posted by: mr | 2005-05-17 8:01:54 PM
I never said conservatives make me giggle. Quite the opposite. The hypocrites and hate-mongers on this site who give them a bad name make me laugh, although I guess I shouldn't laugh. More often that not it's a frustrated laugh, at people who just don't get that screaming at the top of your lungs and calling everyone else an idiot is not the way to change opinions.
Posted by: Bdillon | 2005-05-17 9:34:57 PM
After years of having the CBC/The Star/G&M and assorted other S.Ont.libs screaming at the top of their lungs that cons (West Cdns) are racist,homophobic, unCanadian etc. the only outlet available to vent was to stand on your back porch, shake your fist and scream at the moon, now with the Al Gore invention(the internet) its possible to vent with other like minded folks and although some of it may be over the top - who cares. Now its the hypocrites and hate-mongers at the CBC,Star,G&M, leftie S.Ont. professors, P.Desmarais etc. who stand on their back porch and shake their fist and scream at the moon and Al Gore for inventing the internet - hence the term "moonbat".
Change any opinions yet? - probably not - that moonbat definition might be over the top, but who cares.
Posted by: mr | 2005-05-17 11:03:12 PM
You losers. This is the end of your little dream.
Posted by: Not Ezra Levant | 2005-05-18 12:07:41 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.