Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Gut wrenching.

We wrote extensively about 'why' this might have happened in our post entitled 'Maybe' (see below), but are still grappling with the question of 'how could it have happened?" We challenge those who made a living at advising, plotting, scheming and strategizing for Paul Martin over the past two years to enter into the debate and help us understand how?

How was it that the following relationship was not exploited during the campaign :
From
  • www.acanadianleaf.blogspot.com
  • :

    "...Mulroney was so despised when he left politics that his Progressive Conservative party was reduced to two seats, the most humiliating defeat ever suffered by a national ruling political party in Canada. Since then, the former prime minister has worked tirelessly to restore his tattered reputation. Now, 11 years after the fact, he is making a comeback of sorts through his association with Harper..."


    "...Harper paused during his election campaign to praise Mulroney for his help in uniting the former Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties into the new Conservative party prior to the Canadian election.

    "Mr. Mulroney was very supportive — as (were former Reform leader Preston) Manning and Mr. (Mike) Harris and all kinds of people — very, very supportive of bringing the parties together," Harper said.

    "He provided me, when I've asked, with very insightful advice on not just Quebec, but on Canadian politics."

    Meanwhile, Harper has hinted that he may appoint Mulroney senators to his cabinet if he becomes prime minister after June 28 (2004) - and lacks MPs from Quebec."



    Why wasn't this angle played up in the strategy to promote Martin as a strong fiscal leader?
    From the Globe and Mail today :

    S&P confirms triple-A rating for Canada
    Tuesday, January 31, 2006 Page B6 Canadian Press

    TORONTO -- Standard & Poor's Ratings Services has affirmed the Canadian government's top-of-the-heap triple-A rating on its long-term debt.

    "Canada has the political capacity and will to respond quickly to changing conditions; it has a diversified economy; and it has a strong financial system," the international credit rating agency said yesterday, noting that Canada is one of four Group of Seven countries rated triple-A. "Canada has a better fiscal position than either France or Germany along with greater monetary flexibility," S&P said.

    "Its external position is much stronger than that of the U.S. The triple-A rating on Canada is secure against most foreseeable events."

    9 comments:

    gwilliamjr@aol.com said...

    It happened because in this country we get to decide who is in power and who leads us...Silly.
    We live in a Democracy..where each voter informs themselves on platforms of each party...the candidate of each party and what the party has done in the past..then we have an election..and the results of that election are respected by both party's and the party supporters.

    tobias said...

    Our point exactly. Maybe if the voters were made aware of Harpers connection to Mulroney, they may have thought twice about the man who "... was so despised when he left politics that his Progressive Conservative party was reduced to two seats, the most humiliating defeat ever suffered by a national ruling political party in Canada."

    gwilliamjr@aol.com said...

    My "point" exactly as well. The voters must have been "unaware"...its the lack of respect for the results...thats my point!! So if you loose an election its because the voters were unaware?? Thats pretty rich. And it pretty much sums up the Liberal party and what it has to do to get better. If you think for one minute that showing Mulroney and Prime Minister Harper together would gain votes then you just dont get it....the Liberal party has shown a lack of respect for Parliament and taxpayers, and, its only the respect that your party has gained over the years that kept it to a C minority. Imagine...after 12 years of power the very first thing a new government has to do is to pass a law to pave the way to clean up Parliament and the way it works...not the legacy Mr. Chretian and Mr Martin had hoped for...oh, and I guarantee the next Liberal leader will not ask Mr Martin or Mr Chretain for help come election time...voters dont forget.

    tobias said...

    Excellent points and the kind of debate that is necessary in the run up to the Liberal leadership campaign.

    The thesis for this post is how "gut wrenching" it is that voters have forgotten the recent past and elected a Prime Minister whose organization and support is tied to Brian Mulroney and his "people"

    So with respect to your last sentance..."voters don't forget."...actually, they do - and that is the point behind the post.

    Carrie said...

    I was also wondering why they didn't play that up. Perhaps the Liberal party needs good researchers? It's true that voters forget and that's what had me most frustrated during the election. They seemed to have forgotten an awful lot.

    EX-NDIP said...

    Mulroney screw up . . . . Conservatives leave . . . 2 seats

    Liberals screw up . . . . Liberals blindly follow . . . 103 seats

    Conclusion:
    Cons = thinking Voters
    Libs = Sheep

    And the next scandal is the helicopter fiasco . . . . more billions wasted by Libs and a lawsuit coming!!!

    Anonymous said...

    I would have to say Chretien will go down in history as one of the most reviled PMs ever. Mulroney is looking quite lovely next to him. As for Paul Martin? The hate-filled campaign he ran puts him right in there with Chretien. Absolutely disgusting man.

    Mulroney is an absolute prince in comparison with these two men.

    tobias said...

    Mulroney a prince?
    We don't know that we would go that far.

    Anonymous said...

    Enjoyed a lot! »