Thursday, January 12, 2006

Election Watch '06: Candidate Dump

The Tories became the first party to dump a candidate after it was revealed that a BC candidate was facing smuggling charges after allegedly smuggling a car and 112 bottles of booze across the border in 2004. Derek Zeisman will have to sit as independent should he be elected. This could be a sign of things to come as Harper and the Tories edge towards a majority in the polls. The last Tory government under Brian Mulroney was rife with corruption and resignations.
On the other hand, this is the first real glitch in the well-run Tory campaign. The Liberals are panicking; anytime a Prime Minister announces a major campaign plank like eliminating the constitutional Notwithstanding clause (and does it so suddenly that it doesn't even make it into the party's election platform), you know that he thinks he's spending his last days at 24 Sussex. Clearly, Martin is trying to insinuate that Harper has a secret agenda against same-sex marriage, abortion, gay rights and other progressive issues. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Harper did, but Harper, from his perspective, has had the good sense to keep his mouth shut and the good luck that his candidates have done the same thing.
And in a bit of surprise, Mario Dumont (head of the provincial Action démocratique du Québec party) advised voters not to vote for the federal Bloc Québécois). Dumont will not recommend a federal party to vote for, but did say he will vote Conservative. The real surprise will be when Harper gives Dumont a cabinet post. Golly, yes, what a surprise that will be.
I'm sure Jack Layton said or did something this week, too. But no one's listening.

2 comments:

  1. CuriosityKilledTheCat8:15 AM

    Globe & Mail having buyer’s remorse on Harper before even making the purchase?
    Seems so. Perhaps they should have taken a bit of time to examine whether this leopard had really changed its spots, or just hidden itself in sheep’s clothing in its stealth campaign to win power. Today’s G&M has this hand-wringing article about Stephen Harper’s US-style political views:
    “With one brush, he tarred both the independent judges and the independent civil service on whose expertise he will have to rely if his party wins power. Questioned yesterday by reporters, he hedged slightly but did not retract his view.
    It is a pernicious view, and raises serious questions. If he sees the courts as a Liberal bastion arrayed against his Conservatives, would he systematically appoint known Conservatives to the bench as vacancies arose? And what of the Supreme Court of Canada? The top court has been remarkable for the evenhandedness with which Conservative and Liberal prime ministers alike have appointed excellent judges. There is certainly room for a public process to review nominated judges, as Mr. Harper himself has pledged, but that speaks to the benefits of an open process, and not to any record of blatantly partisan appointments. On the contrary, the court might have most to fear from a prime minister who, to right an imagined wrong, would stack it with partisan choices.
    Mr. Harper's them-versus-us view suggests the seesaw politics of the United States, where Republican and Democratic presidents compete to place judges on the Supreme Court who reflect their views. It is not a system Canada should go near. The same applies to the senior public service, where politics trumps continuity in the U.S. in a way foreign to this country.”

    It’s not too late, G&M: now that your eyes are opened, you can withdraw your support of Harper and his rightwing US-style neocons ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Harper is cut from the same cloth as the most partisan of US politicians, namely the Bushie Neocon crowd, to whom every issue is dealt with using the "you're with or against us" mentality. Us vs Them (with Us always being on the side truth, God, and rightfulness).
    He scares the beejeebus out of me.
    Martin is just an inept dofus. Harper is afrightening idealogue.

    ReplyDelete