we move to canada
Oh there is an opposition, if there wasn't, Brother Steve would have criminalized abortion a long time ago. Guaranteed. Go to my place, I have a 3 year old video that everyone should watch. In the end, Sen Nancy Ruth basically warned of what is to come should Steve get a majority.Here's my post, I also have audio-link.http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2010/05/03/a-harpercon-senator-loses-it-and-uses-dah-f-word/
I heard the audio on the Toronto Star site. If there was an opposition, these bastards would have been out of government a long time ago.
Audio link through Star story. They're the ones who caught it.
No, unfortunately, it just ain't that simple. Steve has one significant and invaluable asset. he now owns most of Mainstream media, with the exception of perhaps the TO Star, some columnists from Grope & Fail and some from CBC, Harper has MSM in complete lockstep with him serving his kool-aid which the majority centrists these days are only too happy to swallow. How else do you explain the centrists sudden willingness to be veered on Steve's sharp right turn?Why do you think when Liberals try to be oppositional, they get lambasted in the media?Also, many of these con pundits refuse to let ADSCAM die, which is hurting them.It's a serious problem
I'm aware that it's a serious problem. I wasn't intending to oversimplify, just giving a quick response. I am very frustrated by the spineless, pathetic, do-nothing, stand-for-nothing Liberals, and not too impressed with the NDP these days, either.I can't blame Ignatieff's Liberals on the media.It's not necessary to debate it here, though.
I actually find the media in Canada quite critical of the Conservatives, relative to the US MSM. Many conservative columnists are openly critical Harper. The G&M is almost always anti-Harper - except during election season. In this case, I think blaming the media for the longevity of the Harper government is being verrry kind - and very blind. Harper has played Ignatieff like a violin. It's completely pathetic. "Oh there is an opposition" really means there is not a majority. It doesn't actually mean Harper gets opposed on anything.
Unfortunately, media influences election outcomes (90% approx) Did a poli-sci paper on this when I was at university.If u don't have media on your side, you're already in a heap of trouble.
I think you're seriously misreading this senator and the context of her remark. Yes she's a Conservative - appointed by Paul Martin - and a fierce advocate for women's rights. Don't get blinded by partisanship.
Unfortunately, media influences election outcomes (90% approx)With respect, I can only say: DUH.No kidding. Media influences elections. Do tell.With or without the media, Michael Ignatieff is a friggin jellyfish. You can do as many poli-sci papers as you want, it won't help him grow a spine.
I think you're seriously misreading this senator and the context of her remark. Yes she's a Conservative - appointed by Paul Martin - and a fierce advocate for women's rights. Don't get blinded by partisanship.Do you mean my partisanship or hers? I have no party. Anyone who reads my blog should know that.I'm familiar with Nancy Ruth. Pro-war, anti-worker, and I would hardly call her an advocate for women. One cannot be anti-choice and an advocate for women. I listened to the whole audio clip, and I don't think it's taken out of context.
G&M endorsed Harper in last elections.At G&M only Ric Salutin, Lawrence Martin and Tabatha Southey are not conservative. The rest of 'em are.Even TO Star has con writers like Rosie di Manno, Angelo Perischilli.Liberals have to find a way of getting media back.Steve also does backroom deals with Jack and Gilles as well, that's his game: divide and conquer, and he plays it skilfully. Of course, success depends on his current mandate, needing only one party to keep him afloat.Doesn't help when pundits insist on keeping ADSCAM alive and well...hell G&M's Daniel Leblanc did a 3 part series that reads like a novel, resurrecting ADSCAM.Liberals have got to somehow get past that once and for all.Will be difficult since separatists are also keeping it alive and well as they blame ADSCAM from preventing the yes side to win in 1995. An uphill battle indeed.
My mistake, she is pro-choice. Sorry about that, Ms Ruth.But "fierce advocate for women", I'm going to need more evidence for that one.
since we all can hear the quote, i'd be interested in hearing what mound thinks the actual context was.
I'm aware of the various endorsements.The Liberals have to find a way of being liberal, find a leader who knows how to lead, taking a stand, and showing the country that they stand for something. As long as we have a Con-Lib coalition, the Cons will only get stronger.CK, with respect, enough already.
I'd suggest you have a read of "Just Another Willy Loman's" take on Ruth. In particular he notes her role in founding LEAF and The Canadian Women's Foundation. I agree with his view that she's warning her audience that Harper isn't to be taken lightly on this issue and to be careful.
G&M endorsed Harper in last elections.Hence my earlier statement:The G&M is almost always anti-Harper - except during election season.
I'd suggest you have a read of "Just Another Willy Loman's" take on Ruth. In particular he notes her role in founding LEAF and The Canadian Women's Foundation. I agree with his view that she's warning her audience that Harper isn't to be taken lightly on this issue and to be careful.Thanks. I am aware of her association with LEAF and CWF. I know she is always called "feminist Senator Ruth". But I just don't agree that the many people who are upset about her remark are taking anything out of context. She's saying abortion rights are safe in Canada (not necessarily true) so we shouldn't care about the G8 initiative? I don't appreciate being told not to care about international women's health because Harper will only make it worse.
Rather than JAWL, I'll take DJ! who says, if this is friendly advice, I'd hate to be threatened by Senator Ruth.
Yes she's a Conservative - appointed by Paul MartinWait, what?? How did that happen?
Imp Strumpet: it's true. She was a Paul Martin appointee under the Progressive Conservative brand, even though it was defunct.After reading more, perhaps she did mean it as a warning, as she would know first hand How Brother Steve really is and what he would do or not do.It doesn't excuse her delivery though
Oh gosh, with numbers like Iggy's, getting too cocky never a good idea.Remember how he dropped the gauntlet last fall? His numbers plummeted and Steve's numbers shot right on up. Had it not been for Layton voting with Steve on ways and means motion, we would be looking at a Harpercon majority today.My point is we lambaste him for getting oppositional and we lambaste him for dithering. Which is it?you're perhaps right, maybe it's not entirely the media. It is mostly our attitudes of wanting a 'perfect' oppostion. we want parliamentary reform, and such. you're not going to get parliamentary reform under Brother Steve.The most terrifying thing for me is a Harpercon majority. And frankly, I don't care how it happens, a Harpercon majority must be prevented.This kind of lambasting of Iggy at and the Liberals at every turn won't prevent a Harpercon majority, if anything, it will be a contributing factor.I'm not a fan, but he's all we got right now. Forget NDP, they will never ever govern. Canada just ain't that far to the left
I will not "forget NDP". Just because they will never govern does not mean they do not influence the political landscape. I assume you know that.Without the NDP there would be no hope that the Liberals would ever be liberal. One only need look to our neighbours to the south to see that.I appreciate your thoughts but let's call it a night, ok?
Lambasting Iggy will cause a Harper majority??? What could cause a Harper majority is Iggy! Not people criticizing him.He's all we've got? Like he's the only possible leader for that party? That's absurd.If Harper couldn't win a majority against Stephane Dion - talk about not having media support! - his majority ship has sailed.
Do PMs normally appoint senators that aren't part of their party? If so, why? (And if not, why did it happen in this case?)
This kind of lambasting of Iggy at and the Liberals at every turn won't prevent a Harpercon majority, if anything, it will be a contributing factor.Then Harper should have every seat in Parliament at this point. Ig has not exactly been drawing waves and waves of praise since ... well, since ever.I'm not a fan, but he's all we got right now.He's the only person on Earth that can lead [sic] the party? Man, they *are* screwed.
Hey wasn't Iggy the white knight who was going to rescue the Liberals from Dione's ineptitude? I think there may be the possibility of a serious lack of judgement or leadership potential in the Liberal party.
Redsock, who do u suggest then? Bob Rae; I can see those attack ads by Bloc and Harpercons; want him to do to Canada what he did to Ontario. I'm sure many Ontario Centrists are so quick to forgive him. A party can win without either Quebec or Ontario, but can't win without both.Justin Trudeau? Promising but doesn't have the experience to go up against Steve the master technician. Already his little tangent for nothing on Question Period,not allowing Shelly Glover to speak showed his lack of maturity and showed pettiness.Plus, old boys' club of Rae would never allow it and would more than likely throw him to the wolves as they did Dion.Martin Cauchon? Perhaps the best choice of all, assuming he can unseat Mulcair in Outremont.Gerard Kennedy, could win Ontario, but not Quebec, probably same problems as Iggy; the Toronto Leader of the Toronto party...I could go on, but there's no pointThe only way the Liberals are going to get rid of Iggy is for him to lose a federal election. Unfortunately, that means another Harpercon win. Brother Steve knows this is his last kick at the can and he will pull out all to get that majority and he could well get it this time. Is that a risk you're all willing to take??And yes, things can get a hell of lot worse under a Harpercon majority than they are now.Another to think about, don't assume he would call an election in 4 years because he will change that. Remember his by-election campaign from last Novemeber "de l'action; pas d'election". Action, no election.As I've pointed out, I'm not willing to suffer the rest of my days under a Harpercon majority. Sorry.
CK, I put that comment through to not be disrespectful. But I am hereby declaring this the end of this discussion. We are NOT discussing Liberal leadership on this blog! Bleh. I have several answers, but the discussion is CLOSED. Thank you.
I could go on, but there's no pointThat's about the only thing you've said that I agree with.
This from AZ's Facebook page, via Janet Money:I just sent this email to her: "You were joking, right? Or taken way, way out of context? Shouldn’t you be working to change Mr. Harper’s mind, rather than threatening feminists – you know, you used to be one -- about abortion?"Right. We don't need a warning OR advice, whichever it was, to shut up. We need to speak out as often as possible.
L-Girl, that would be an excellent start. Not like being good quiet little girls is going to help us stop Brother Steve's agenda.
Just to clarify: the thread is not closed to comments.I am just not hosting an analysis of who might lead the Liberal party.
Excellent commentary on this by Judy Rebick, writing at Rabble: Feminists have been told to 'shut the fuck up' before. If we had listened we would still be in the kitchen
At first, given what a cursory look at Ruth's past history and stances I was wondering what the context of her comments might have been. After learning a little more about the circumstances of said comment, I'll have to go along with the general consensus and agree that it's just another example of this incarnation of the Conservative Party's arrogance in the face of opposition. They just don't seem to be able to accept any one disagreeing with them for any reason. And after reading Judy Rebick's column I have to agree with her, if they want to make this an election issue let 'em. Though small minded and vindictive seems to go hand in hand with Harper's vision for the Conservative Party.
Post a Comment