Is that it? Is it that we are run by a gang of the dull and fawning? And not just the Tories. When was the last time Canada was impressed by Canadians not on skates? Isn't that the real lesson of the G8 foreign ministers' meeting just past?
As was once said of Margaret Thatcher, Mrs, Clinton is democratic enough to talk down to anyone -- and presumptuous enough to criticize her host for organizing an Arctic conference that didn't include all countries in the region. She told CTV that she wasn't happy about Canadian troops pulling out of Afghanistan, and compounded Mr. Cannon's misery at the closing press conference yesterday by contradicting the Conservative government's policy on maternal health in the Third World, by saying any discussion had to address issues about abortion. It was clear to everyone by this time that Mr. Cannon was being smacked with the full weight of the Secretary of State's purse.
What an odd use of the word "presumptuous" implying that it was not her place to note missing allies. And she isn't contradicting Canadian policy when stating that of her country. It's called standing up for what you think. By comparison, we are butter knives at a steak dinner. We are have become so dull that this is considered gripping conversation. You know, I can't be sure it isn't satire or a transcript. Yet we can't deal with the dud because if she has to go, well, who amongst the rest of them - on all sides of the House - are really that much different from her?
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - March 31, 2010 9:01 AM
The Americans are continuing their practice of smacking their allies and fawning over their adversaries.
Canada, Britain, Israel -- all in the doghouse.
No big deal. That's just how it is with this presidency.
Alan - March 31, 2010 10:03 AM
No, this is not about Obama. This is about our doldrums. Why are only dullards attracted to Federal office?
Matthew Fletcher - March 31, 2010 12:23 PM
Why are all the dullards attracted to federal office?
1. If you aren’t the PM you have no independence to act or think in any meaningful way
2. The money is good but not spectacular
Therefore:
1. If you are interested in making money, you’re much better of in business/finance
2. If you are interested in investigating and expressing ideas you are much better off in academia/journalism/think-tank
3. If you are interested in “making a difference” you are better off in an arms-length government org. or NGO
Ben (The Tiger) - April 1, 2010 9:33 AM
Well, it's a job that forces you to be a yes-man in public, because disloyalty to party can be punished at the nomination level.
Want things to change? Either take party names off the ballot, as the pre-1974 law was, or set up independent voter registrations and a primary system, as the Americans have it.
Till then, no mavericks with long career prospects.
Matthew Fletcher - April 1, 2010 1:32 PM
Absolutely. Taking away the Leaders' control over nominations by implementing a primary system would go a long way to increase MP independence.
More independence for members outside cabinet, so as to create a better distinction between executive and legislative, would also help.