Manatee and Gnomes

So, the networks have decided, after certain unnamed political parties threatened to boycott a televised leadership debate that included Elizabeth May, that “it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all.” I have a feeling May will have no problem finding a pulpit to preach from, if not a podium with the other talking heads. After watching only a few hours of campaign coverage two things are obvious: Elizabeth May is good television, and the networks know it. If no amount of bellyaching or lawsuit threats is sufficient to secure her time in the leadership debate spotlight, she will no doubt benefit from one-on-one interviews with the Peter Robertson’s and Don Duffy’s of Canadian Broadcasting.

Is the decision of the networks fair? I really haven’t thought about it, yet. Let me tell you what I have thought about. The Green Party has little to add to a national election forum than the infectious passion of May herself. The Green Party remains largely a one issue party and the environment is currently well represented by the NDP- long acknowledged by environmentalists as the greenest of the contenders, and the Liberal Party- after years of pretending the green shift is the real deal.

Harper has apparently suggested he suspects May will withdraw and back the Liberals. What is more likely is that she pulls a CAW and encourages supporters to vote for whoever is best suited to defeating the local Conservative candidate. Before she falls on her sword, how many Green supporters will she convince that their vote can not be trusted in the hands of a traditional party? Green Voters, please remember that passion is not a substitute for policy! This country needs more than a 21st century environmental policy. There are ideological homes for you here, or here!

~Manatee

What should Canada’s role be in Afghanistan? If I were able to choose the ballot question, this would be it. I beleive events such as this, and this have not resulted in the quality of debate worthy of theses tragedies. Most media reports of Canadian casualties are accompanied with a quote from a friend or family member of the fallen soldier expressing the commitment of the deceased to the mission, but I wonder to what extent this commitment is sound and true. Few Canadian soldiers would have heard anything other than that their work in Afghanistan is good, and right, and necessary from their commanding officers. Few Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan, even those who don’t support the mission, would have told their family, as they board their flight to a war zone, anything other than their work is good, and right, and necessary.

I know I’ve freaked out about this issue before, but where is the progress? And if there is no progress, where is the debate?! Hopefully prior ‘consensus’ between Canada’s ‘major’ parties (the party that sent the troops there, and the party that hasn’t brought them home) won’t prevent the mission from being a high profile issue this election campaign .

~Manatee

Ah, a double-front election season.  More than enough to draw Gnomes out of hiding.  But where to begin?  Despite all the excitement down south, let’s stay north of the border for now.  So, shall we go with “Our election law was never meant to apply to us?”  Or, in honour of a soon to be ex-MP, “Ken Epp’s Greatest Hits”?

While I’m sure I will get to both of those in time, I think it’s necessary to begin with some catchup.  Reading over my last few posts makes 2006 seem like a long, long time ago.  Was I ever actually foolish enough to be hopeful about Dion’s leadership of the Liberals?  Impossible.

Read the rest of this entry »

Attack ads outside of an election campaign? That gives off an aroma closer to the refined essence of desperation than a choking cloud of cheap cologne. And the environment card? Really? Attacking the Liberals on their environmental record? Really?

Now, the Liberal’s failure to make any significant effort to combat climate change is truly appalling, but when you’ve spent the past decade claiming that Kyoto’s meagre targets were unreachable and that climate change science was bunk, maybe it’s best not to bring up the past at all. What’s the Conservative motto here? “They were almost as abysmal as we would have been!”?

As for the question “Do you think it is easy to make priorities?”, I’m not really sure where the Conservatives are going with that. I’d have to say no, it isn’t easy to make priorities, given the myriad problems facing our country and the limited resources of government to address them. I can’t imagine the process that generated the Conservatives’ list of priorities – tax breaks, cancelling daycare spaces, abandoning international treaties, abandoning First Nations treaties, gutting Status of Women Canada, killing the Court Challenges Program and Law Commission of Canada, and finding time for yet another vote on SSM – but I’m sure it wasn’t “easy”. Surely not that. Surely it’s not easy when your priorities force you to miss the International AIDS Conference when it’s being held in Toronto.

Attack ads play by their nature on fear, anger and stupidity. So really, I suppose, it’s just playing to their base.

~Gnomes

What a difference a day makes. Drunk on two leadership conventions and a quarter bottle of gin, Gnomes is basking in political overload. A proud two-minute-tory, I cast my vote for Ed Stelmach (or rather, against Ted Morton), and directed my goodwill towards Stéphan Dion. In the former case, it seems that I was part of a rather significant and perhaps decisive movement, while the latter effort remains purely a matter of faith. My earlier infatuation with Ignatieff, and predictions of his success, were but youthful indiscretions. I am older now, and, I hope, a little wiser.

Read the rest of this entry »