The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, February 16, 2006
The Michael Wilson announcement
You (not quite, but almost) heard it here first.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Michael Wilson announcement:
Even though Wilson is the ideal Toronto capitalist insider, Albertans can feel confident in his ability to represent our interests fairly. He has to be, as the previous government was against us from the start. Good move for Harper.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-02-16 1:13:32 PM
The old Mulroney-ites are getting the favours they were "owed". Mr. GST gets a lucrative post. If Joe Clark hadn't set the bridge on fire while driving off, he would have become the next GG. I'm waiting for Don Mazankowski to head up the next public inquiry and Patrick Boyer to lead a commission on electoral reform. Hark! The son on Byron Muldoon is at the helm. It's almost surreal.
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-02-16 2:29:32 PM
Better a Mulroney than a Trudeau!
It's good to see political partisanship being eroded for the good of the country. Fewer party hacks being given plush jobs like Crouton and his hero, Pierre the Terrible.
I can think of a Republican president who had Democrats and Whigs in his cabinet. His name was Abraham Lincoln (his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton had been a Democrat.)
I can also think of a Democratic President who had Republicans in his cabinet. His name was Franklin D. Roosevelt (Republican Frank Knox was his Secretary of the Navy.)
I need not remind anyone that these two presidents headed the most important federal administrations in American history.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-02-16 2:43:09 PM
Don't forget Kennedy and Johnson (McNamara), Nixon and Ford (Moynihan) and Dubya (Mineta).
I think Wilson's a good choice. He's a hitter, he's respected by the Americans and gets along with them, and he should be palatable to those who might be suspicious of a neo-conservative in that position.
Posted by: TJR | 2006-02-16 6:36:13 PM
Whoops...I posted this beside the old Daifallah entry...let me post here again, where it should be...
I met Michael Wilson years ago at a Tory function 20-something years ago.
He's a superficially impressive kind of guy, charismatic in a Clark Kent kind of way. He likes to give lip service to small-c conservative ideals.
For example, shortly after the Canadian Constitution was "repatriated" by Pierre Trudeau, I asked Wilson when, if ever, the Tories would push for the inclusion of property rights in said document. He assured me it was a top priority for the party.
Sure, he's leaps and bounds ahead of Frank McKenna, but is Wilson the best Harper can do?
Posted by: Matthew Vadum | 2006-02-16 9:15:42 PM
Mr. Wilson has always had a brain and he has always known how to use it, I think he is a great choice for ambassitor to the U.S.A. I have always liked him and his idea to replace the old, hidden Manufaturers Tax with the G.S.T. had honerable intentions - it was to be the slayer of the debt Trudeau and his ilk had left on the way out. The Liberanos used the G.S.T. as a slush fund; that was not Wilson's intention. I was furious when Malrony appointed a gaggle of senators to get it passed through the house of 'entitlement' - the 2nd house needs reforming ASAP.
Mr. Wilson will not pull any 'dumbos' while he is our Ambassitor. He is one of Canada's best choices for this very important job, IMO.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-02-17 12:17:14 AM
Former Canadian Ambassador is highly skilled negotiator who is very knowledgeable of the Soft Wood Lumber file, and McKenna is well connected in the international sector. Wilson will prove to be equally skilled in negotiations with the
US. But, having said that, as long as President
GW Bush is in the White House, I doubt if any
significant change will be evidenced in the File.
The dispute is driven by US internal Republican
politics. Bush has many Senators from southern
States, which can produce two softwood crops per
year; he needs those Senators on side for his
agenda. Aside from that, Canada (BC) caused the'
dispute in the first instance by denying that
stumpage fees were a form of subsidy - they most
certainly are. The dispute could have been resolved years ago, if Canada had sent negotiators to the US, as they say in Lunenburg
Nova Scotia "what knows how" - but until Frank
McKenna appeared on the scene, they were a pretty
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-02-17 4:11:57 AM
1992. Mulroney's popularity in the polls was lower than any prime minister's in history.
It is realy very disturbing how many of the Former Brian Mulroney's bad guys are coming back in.
IN CASE YOU FORGOTTEN BRIAN MULRONEY AND HIS SELF CENTERED BOYS AND GIRSL WERE NEXT ONE OF THE MOST HATED POLTICANS IN CANAD AND RIGTHFULY SO.
I THOUGHT THE NEW CONSERVATIVES WOULD RIGHTLY MAKE A FRESH START
Ottawa - Brian Mulroney is back and it's bad news for Canadian workers." [::] " Mulroney has emerged as one of Harper's most important advisers in the June 28 (2004) Canadian ...
IS HARPER NOW JUST A BAD MULRONEY PUPPET TOO?
Posted by: Jane | 2006-02-17 5:20:16 AM
Oh come on Jane!
Would you prefer a rookie pilot to fly you to another country during very bad weather our would you better trust an experienced pilot although one of his passengers used to be someone you disliked?
Mulroney is not running the country.
Give Harper a chance...He's an acheiver and a very smart one too. Mark my words, Harper will be a very respected PM and for a very long time.
How long has he been in power now?
Uh, 11 days?
He's already done more than Martin in 18 months.
Posted by: metalguru | 2006-02-17 6:51:27 AM
Unpopularity doesn't mean Mulroney was wrong. In fact, Chretien's sole accomplishment in 12 years in office was to confirm the value of Mulroney's policies.
-they didn't get rid of the GST or NAFTA despite ample opportunity to do so.
-they retained the floating currency and interest rate policies.
-they in fact came to take these ideas as their own. I guess they were too ashamed to admit their debts.
-the only people hurt under Mulroney were rich Ontario people. Good. It was justice for how they prospered under Trudeau while Albertans and Quebecers suffered horribly under the War Measures Act and the NEP.
-He repaired US relations to an unprecedented level of cooperation, which was sadly lamented under the corrupt Chretien gov't.
I would rank Mulroney among the best PMs of all time. He integrated Canada into the North American economy, an act that has allowed more people to share in the prosperity. Sure, he wasn't popular towards the end, but his ideas have survived whereas virtually everything Trudeau implemented - indeed only multiculturalism - has been replaced. In fact, Trudeau should be ranked as the worst PM of all time, with Chretien close behind.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-02-17 7:46:56 AM
I agree with Scott.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-02-17 11:03:52 AM
And Martin should go down in history as the most Shameless, pathetic, desperate Liberal in recent memory.
Back to the previous comments. I agree, Mulroney, although not popular, made tough decisions and tried to do what was right for the country. I see Harper as simply going to someone with experience and some like-minded philosophies, to get some input.
Posted by: ace | 2006-02-17 4:45:33 PM
We've had some really bad leaders. I'm not that proud of voting for Mulroney, but he did some good things. I hope that choosing Harper signals a shift from image to substance.
My proudest moment was voting for Bob Stanfield at age 18. If he had been elected this country would be a much better place today. He had substance. Just ask yourself how you'd feel on your next hunting trip without his underwear on your ass. He and some other local businessmen turned Truro NS into a thriving town despite a desperate provincial economy. He was the greatest prime minister we never had.
Mr. Wilson will do a good job.
Posted by: dan | 2006-02-18 2:06:38 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.