If the local candidate is only worth 5%?
If the local candidate in any election is only worth about a 5% increase or decrease in the final numbers (and this is a bedrock of belief amongst pundits and pols alike) how can a story like this gain traction? This story, published in the "Hill Times" quotes spokespeople from Harris-Decima as saying, "The next election will be fought on a riding by riding basis." Kinda of a contradiction. Fighting the election riding by riding assumes that local candidates will be important to the election. Not!
If local candidates are going to be important let's look at what we have here in NQW. An incumbent who has been pasting the riding with cheques and cut ribbons and costing us a fortune on nonsensical free flyers - "householders", that arrive on what seems to be a weekly basis and two parties that have not announced who their candidate is going to be. The Libs have a nomination race with two no-names announced so far and a couple more in the wings, but nobody with "gravitas" yet. It appears that this will be a nomination fight by proxy - who can snag the biggest endorsement; round one to a man who lives in the riding but teaches in Kingston. Andrew McFadyen, from Warkworth, has been endorsed by someone who the average voter may have trouble remembering - Christine Stewart, an ex Chretien Minister. The Dippers haven't had a press release yet to announce a replacement for Russ Christianson, it is believed to be Will Lambert from Port Hope, but he had better start to get out this summer to the BBQs just to introduce himself.
If local candidates are going to be important let's look at what we have here in NQW. An incumbent who has been pasting the riding with cheques and cut ribbons and costing us a fortune on nonsensical free flyers - "householders", that arrive on what seems to be a weekly basis and two parties that have not announced who their candidate is going to be. The Libs have a nomination race with two no-names announced so far and a couple more in the wings, but nobody with "gravitas" yet. It appears that this will be a nomination fight by proxy - who can snag the biggest endorsement; round one to a man who lives in the riding but teaches in Kingston. Andrew McFadyen, from Warkworth, has been endorsed by someone who the average voter may have trouble remembering - Christine Stewart, an ex Chretien Minister. The Dippers haven't had a press release yet to announce a replacement for Russ Christianson, it is believed to be Will Lambert from Port Hope, but he had better start to get out this summer to the BBQs just to introduce himself.
27 comments:
I think you've nailed it here, Ben.
Trying to wipe out Norlock's massive 3,000+ vote majority in one fell swoop will be an almost impossible task. Even a 25% gain by the Libs and NDP will still garner 750 more votes in total. And nobody is organized! NDP and Greens are bound to slide backwards, because so very few of the voters know the Parties are even around anymore. Libs hold a candidate lottery, trying to tease out the "best' person. But I think people DO remember Christine Stewart. She did a lot for this riding and served with distinction. The fact that both she and former Lib Pres Dennis Buckley endorse MacFadyen automatically puts him in the candidacy driver's seat.
Norlock's communications are handles by his idiotic EA, Tom Rittwage, who has aspirations of his own to run federally. God help us all. Rick has been told several times that his mail outs are overkill. Perhaps you could send him a similar note.
Ben calls Christine Stewart, "someone who the average voter may have trouble remembering."
This average voter remembers that Stewart was the Environment Minister who negotiated the Kyoto Protocol for Canada. Greens will certainly remember her as such. If strategic voting has credibility, her support might garner Green votes for the Liberals. I suspect that Ignatieff's abandonment of the coalition last December means that strategic voting is a dead horse in the coming race.
Maybe who the local candidate is doesn't matter in the final count, but it certainly matters who the winner is!
Norlock has made it very clear that if you don't agree with his own party positions, then your opinions are of no interest to him whatsoever. He certainly isn't going to listen to you, no way!
I sure don't want another term of tory bungling, and I just hope whoever gets the liberal nomination has half the integrity and focus Christine Stewart has. Her endorsement matters to me so I look forward to hearing from her protege.
As a rule I just mail Norlock's mail out back to him. Maybe a better idea would be to shread it and put it on my flower bed.
Interesting to note that while Ben thinks the average voter might not remember Christine Stewart, 3 of the 4 posters all seem to think highly of her.
Is it remotely possible Mr. Burd is the one who tends to under value the contributions of women other than our talents in the kitchen?
You really do get what you deserve. It's something of the Rip Van Winkel effect that allows cardboard Rick characters to win so effortlessly in ridings like ours. On the other hand , it's also called democracy, so it ain't all bad I guess. For me , I'm at the edge of my seat awaiting what Rick will do next in the face of the burning questions of the day for him - senate reform. You go boy.
Is there any doubt that Norlock's position on senate reform will be exactly what Harper tells him it is?
I would like this guy a lot better if he showed some indication he's capable of independent thought.
Unfortunately, so far there's been none of that.
I do like Anon's descriptor of Norlock as a cardboard cut out though, it makes me wonder if that wasn't part of Macklin's problem. He never seemed to generate much human heat and may well have been made of cardboard too.
Perhaps what we need is a match!
Christine Stewart was a slacker concerning the nuclear reactor Canada was building for the Ceausescu regime in Cernavoda, Romania. That site was found to be using forced labour (specifically, Magyars), cooling towers constructed with voids, and threats to create nuclear weapons.
None of this was unknown to Ms Stewart, because I provided here with the info. Most Canucks were unaware of this. My MP was NDPer, Dan Heap, and he was provided with all of the details, as were other NDPers and socialists, but they refused to believe the bad news about Nicolae Ceausescu's regime & the CANDU. Their ideology prevented them from seeing the horror in this instance.
Here is a link to the AECL website discussing the Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant, Romania.
The site reports that there are 3 Candu units at Cernavoda" two operating and a third planned for completion 2012-13. Here is an AECL quote from the website:
"The work on the nuclear power plants was started in 1980 but due to political and financial issues completion was delayed. Unit 1 completion was performed by an AECL lead AECL/Ansaldo Consortium between 1992 and 1996. This project was completed on schedule."
Here are two quotes from Wikipedia concerning the 1989 end of Nicolae Ceausescu's regime and the 1997 term of Christine Stewart as Minister of the Environment:
"The Romanian Revolution of 1989 resulted in more than 1,000 deaths in Timişoara and Bucharest, and brought about the fall of Ceauşescu and the end of the Communist regime in Romania."
"Following the Liberal victory in the 1993 election, Stewart was appointed Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa). In 1997, she was promoted to the Cabinet as Minister of the Environment."
Mr. Keeler, too, remembers Christine Stewart, though he has forgotten that her tenure as Minister of the Environment, which is what is of relevance here, began eight years after the end of the Ceauşescu regime.
Once again the facts triumph over unclear distant memory - or was that just bombast?
Either way, Christine Stewart is vindicated, her reputation intact.
Your comments and or explanations, Mr. Keeler?
All of us are, from time to time, shortsighted in our understandings and blind-sided by events. Mr. Keeler is correct to point this out. I wish he had a better understanding of how such failings affect his own judgments, though no doubt I have equally as much difficulty recognizing my own failings.
But, to the point, Mr. Keeler mentions Dan Heap, whom I know to have been genuinely concerned about human rights and actively engaged by issues of social justice. Were I called to adjudicate a dispute between Mr. Keeler and Mr. Heap on any such matter, I cannot imagine that Mr. Keeler would come out the winner.
Check this out:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallykeeler/2097978358/sizes/l/in/set-72157603778638826/
and also this:
http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v05n3p08.htm
So Deb, tell us how easy it was for you to go all gullible for Willaim's strawman.
Here's some more demolishment of Mr Hayes spurious assertions:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallykeeler/2219869176/sizes/l/in/set-72157603778638826/
page 2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallykeeler/2219077245/sizes/l/in/set-72157603778638826/
Another one for Ms Stewart's heart:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallykeeler/2215820984/sizes/l/in/set-72157603778638826/
What was it that you were BSing William? And Deb Oh Oh fell for your bombast, LOL.
So Manfred, how'd I do?
How the left ignored Ceausescu
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallykeeler/2097978744/sizes/l/in/set-72157603778638826/
And just a tease for William
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallykeeler/2097202953/sizes/l/in/set-72157603244422857/
Wally, is there an easier way to link to your "proof"? Life's way too short to write down all that info and then type it into my computer to try and bring it all up.
But I am willing to check it out if it can be made easier for me.
Hello Wally,
My paean to Christine Stewart and Dan Heap was intended to express my admiration for them somewhat as follows:
-- for Ms. Stewart's efforts for social justice in Central America and her success in negotiating the Kyoto accord for Canada;
-- for Mr. Heap's lifelong involvement in social justice and human rights work before, during, and after his career as an MP.
What anyone adduces about other matters related to either of them cannot, in my eyes, diminish their splendid reputations. That is what I intended to say.
However, my penchant for "rhetorical flourish" led me, at the end of my comments about Mr. Heap, to involve you personally in an odious comparison. I did so gratuitously, needlessly, and recklessly. I regret what I said about you and offer you my apology.
In addition, I ask the forgiveness of those who read my remark, which was petty and petulant and provided an ignoble footnote to what was intended as praise for the contributions of two outstanding Canadians.
An examination of the historical material Mr. Keeler provided includes several references to his claim of a "nuclear threat" from AECL-Romanian CANDU reactors, a claim that clearly had less substance than USAmerica's claim about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
For me, the really quite horrible revelations that followed the Romanian Revolution of 1989 were those detailing the conditions of infants and young children in orphanages, conditions that were nothing short of abuse. This human rights issue dwarfed Mr. Keeler's spurious concern about AECL and CANDU reactors.
Don't write it out Deb. Copy and paste it into the URL line and the net will take you to the site.
Perhaps this will help: Turning a Blind Eye On a Romanian Horror
Canada's CANDU sale To Romania
Romanian Tragedy Continues
The site contains two published letters pertaining to Ms Stewart and her lack of concern about the CANDU deal with Ceausescu.
It runs a hole through Mr Hayes' spurious innuendo that it could not have happened as I recalled it. Przt to Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes runs shotgun for the reps of Ms Stwart and Dan Heap. My remarks about both pertained specifically to the Romanian CANDU issue, not to anything else pertaining to those two politicians. As much as Mr Hayes wants to gloss & polish those MP's, he can't get rid of this specific tarnishment on their parts.
Dan Heap was my member of Parliament -- he lived two blocks away. I am quite familiar with his work. He is a politician, plays politics like other politicians. As much as it might tarnish the messiah syndrome that Mr Mayes curtsies, Heap fell down on the job on this issue.
Mr Hayes is abysmally ignorant of the Romanian CANDU issue and it shows. There was far more to the Romanian CANDU scandal than he can even recall on his best day.
He has a disregard of everything else in the issue; loss of textile jobs, starvation to pay for the reactor, criminal workmanship, forced labour, and the intention of developing nuclear weapons.
His ref to Iraq misses the point altogether. There was no suggestion whatsoever that Romania possessed nukes, nor that their development was imminent. The point was intent. Why should Canada construct nuclear reactors for a criminal regime which vowed to utilize for weapons purposes?
As much as Mr Hayes desires to diminish all of the above issues, he can certainly claim that he took not a single action concerning Romania, whereas I did take action.
Let us also recall that Dan Heap did diddly to help the poor Romanian orphans that Wm Hayes laments so sincerely. Back to you Dan.
Here's some more on the Romanian CANDU scandal that Mr Hayes is welcome to diminish. BTW, note how I also slam the Conservatives on this issue as well as Heap(NDP) & Stewart (Liberal).
Hungarian Slaves At CANDU, PAGE1
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
My Hayes asserts: "This human rights issue dwarfed Mr. Keeler's spurious concern about AECL and CANDU reactors."
1: of illegitimate birth : bastard
2: outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : false
3a: of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : forged b: of a deceitful nature or quality.
There was nothing spurious about my concern. Canada was deeply involved in the criminal regime of Ceausescu. That regime was Europe's most odius since Hitler and Stalin.
Spurious. Hardly. William -- you really look bad with both feet in your mouth -- even up here in the near wildermess
Thanks for posting the links Wally, although it was disappointing to discover they were just letters and articles you wrote way back when. That doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you save everything you ever wrote about anything.
It will take more than that to diminish my respect for either Christine or Dan Heap, whom I met a couple of times at leftie events in the city. Both fine politicians and human beings too.
Your energy and enthusiasm, Wally, are prodigious, but shamelessly self-serving.
I participate in a letter-writing project for Amnesty International with respect to the current human rights disaster in Columbia, where more than 3 million people have been driven from their land and are now internal refugees. It is particularly appropriate that Canadians participate in this campaign, because Canada has recently concluded three agreements with the government of Columbia concerning Free Trade, Labour Cooperation, and the Environment.
I direct my letters to officials in the Columbian government, but I also send copies to the Canadian Prime Minister and the leaders of the other Canadian political parties, as AI instructs Canadians writers to do.
The efforts I am making now on behalf of the Columbian people are very little, really, compared to the needs of their situation. In contrast, your efforts of 20 years ago on behalf of the Romanian people may have been little short of Herculean.
Even so, there is another, perhaps subtle difference between your efforts and mine, Wally, which gets to the point of my starting remark. I am much less sanguine about the possibility of the world sitting up and taking notice simply because Bill Hayes writes a letter. As a result, I will not be saving copies of my letters so that, in 20 years time, I can harangue everyone within earshot about the great efforts I made in 2009 on behalf of the Columbian people. Nor, in the altogether likely event that little comes of my efforts, will I blame my failure on the fact that Stephen Harper and all the other politicians who received copies of my letters were little more than venal pricks.
On balance, Christine Stewart and Dan Heap and Joe Clark (among those you malign) made, in very different ways, outstanding contributions to Canada and its place in the world, sometimes at great personal sacrifice. The carping that you and I do about people of their stature says more about our smallness than about their greatness.
I sense, Wally, that you are having difficulties in this discussion. You seem confused and confounded, perhaps because things are not going as you would like. Here is my analysis of your situation:
1) A magician who reveals his secrets loses his audience. You gave away the secret of your participation in this blog, Wally, when you said, "The purpose of politicians is for target practice." You are here for effect, for the amazed reaction of an audience. Now that the secret is out, the thrill in the audience is gone.
2) No one can win an argument with a talking dog. The dog always wins, not because what he says is eloquent or captivating, but because of the miracle that he says anything at all. So here you are, Wally, a stand-up comic facing the dogged determination of a heckler who will not shut up and sit down.
For what it's worth (and free advice is often worth just what you pay for it) I suggest, Wally, that if you can manage to relax, then with some luck your consternation may just go away. If that doesn't work, try a long bike ride over to the library in Port Hope to pick up John Ralston Saul's new book, A Fair Country. Both the ride and the read may do you some good.
Methinks William puts far too much store in the 'printed word' for they are no more than spoken ones. Just because they are printed does not make them any more likely to be truthful than when they are simply spoken. Quoting or referencing them endlessly in support of a statement does mot proffer authority or accuracy upon that statement, I'm afraid. They just indicate that there is some sort of support, somewhere, for its premise, or that it itself is merely supporting someone else's premise. My view is that a statement of note needs a well reasoned argument with it in support, to present a matter worth discussing.
I posted letters to defend myself against your groundless accusation Wm. Your evidence to support your contention against me was flimsy at the very best. Still it was good enough to dupe Deb.
Yes, there are the many who will not admit that the strutting king has his fly open until the child points it out, "Look the king has no clothes."
(There are countless times when I have walked out with an open fly and been told about it.)
There are people who idolize Michael Jackson, and there are those who idolize a couple politicians and will not hear any criticism of their record.
Did I dare to go into Romania and smuggle out information? Did I receive information provided by others who took far more profound risks that I could bring myself to do?
William says, "So here you are, Wally, a stand-up comic facing the dogged determination of a heckler who will not shut up and sit down.
I've never suggested that you shut up and sit down. Your arm-chair analysis reminds me of a scorned wife. I expect you to continue to behave thusly. Well, you have served notice.
I wouldn't expect you to have cared one bit about Romania back in those days. After all, Stewart and Heap, certainly didn't, until it was politic to do so. I'm convinced they are politicians. William and Deb are convinced they are neo-Gandhis'
Deb: "Thanks for posting the links Wally, although it was disappointing to discover they were just letters and articles you wrote way back when. That doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you save everything you ever wrote about anything."
It proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that the malign comment made my way by Mr Hayes, was nothing more than a malign comment. It proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you were taken in by Mr Hayes' spurious charge. After all it was part of Mr Hayes contention that it could NOT have happened as I described it long long ago. You also made a malign comment about the memory of old white guys, and poof, there's my proof supporting MY assertion, and poof, Wm Haye's assertion disolves into a pile of post-nutritive disposal substance.
Deb asserts, "It will take more than that to diminish my respect for either Christine or Dan Heap, whom I met a couple of times at leftie events in the city. Both fine politicians and human beings too."
I couldn't care less about the degree of respect you have towards those politicians any more than you could care less about individuals I might respect and admire for whatever reason.
Manfred said: Methinks William puts far too much store in the 'printed word'.
I agree with what you say here, Manfred. My fascination with printed words has been lifelong and I own that there may be something not altogether wholesome about it. Yet, because of my interest, I feel a kinship with others who have carried on written conversations over centuries on matters of great import, though I hasten to add that nothing I have ever written deserves being preserved and passed on.
Here is the ending of the poem What Happened When He Went to the Store for Bread by Canadian poet Alden Nowlan:
"... there must be / people in cities that I've never visited / whose lives have changed, perhaps not because of what / I've written but because I wrote: it might be / they didn't like my play and so left early / and because they left early something happened / that would not have happened if they'd stayed-- / I put it that way so as not to sound immodest. / God knows, there's not a lot to boast about / when so much seems to depend upon the time of day / a boy goes out to buy a loaf of bread."
For me (though I don't suggest that this is his intention) Nowlan captures the humility I feel when I hold in my hands the words of others, words written years, perhaps centuries ago, words that, taken together, constitute a written conversation among the living and the dead, words that allow me to think of myself as a member of what Nicolas Slonimsky called An Intellectual Internationale.
Good testament William. Good testament.
Post a Comment