Canadian PM Rushes to Help in Evacuations

Harper is planning on flying to Cyprus and going to bring back 120 stranded Canadians from Lebanon.

Great, Wonderful, good timing.......I just wonder if he'll be wearing a flight suit during his little tour.  Think of the hugs and thanks he'll get from the family's when he returms, when he picks them up etc ......think of the PHOTO's

Never mind that his time might be better spent trying to figure out how to help the other 49 880 Canadians that are stuck in Lebanon...but then again they don't offer such good photo's.

Here's some quotes

http://www.cbc.ca/...

"The Conservative government has been criticized for its slow response to the crisis in Lebanon, with opposition politicians and ordinary citizens saying Ottawa has taken too long to get its evacuation plan in order. Canada has an estimated 50,000 citizens in Lebanon."

"Handfuls of Canadians said Tuesday and Wednesday they are not waiting for Canada's evacuation plan and are making their own way home. Some have already boarded ships arranged by other countries and have arrived back in Canada."

Read that line again "some have already boarded ships arranged by other countries and arrived back"   How freaking embarassing is that!

In Canada we've already losy 9 citizens in Lebanon....and our government is more concerned about a photo op then coming up with any real solution.

http://www.cbc.ca/...

The family was on vacation and a bomb hit beside them and knocked down the house they where in...

Mr.Harper your a disgrace to Canada.

•  For anyone that doubts this guy

  Isn't similar to Bush look at this PR stunt.

  WHile I agree COnservatives in Canada aren't like Republicans, the part of the party Harper is from is very much like your GOP.

  by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:11:04 AM PDT

  •  What were to old parties called?

    The western conservatives had some meaningless name, the Alliance or something, and the Ontario conservatives were called the Progressive Tories, right?  I know which one I'd like more.

    by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:26:35 AM PDT

    •  Progressive Conservatives...

      ...were the old national party.  Brian Mulroney's PCs in the 80s discovered the folly of brokerage politics: in catering to their nationalist Quebec base, they alienated their Western base.  As a result, the Reform Party sprouted in the West and completely wiped out the PCs west of Ontario.  The Reform Party evolved into the Alliance (an attempt to broaden its appeal eastward, but it didn't sell), and eventually it swallowed the old PCs.

      by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:33:21 AM PDT

      •  I should also say.

        The old PCs were often moderate and sensible--but that trend was declining with Mulroney/Campbell (although Joe Clark was still old-school cool).  They also had a lot of strong Western conservatives in their ranks, but, as I said, they broke off, formed a new party with stronger numbers, and swallowed whatever was left of the old PCs a couple years ago.

        I don't trust these new Conservatives.

        by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:35:26 AM PDT

        •  You're right...

          I refuse to call them Tories for that reason.  There is little in common between Joe Clark and the likes of Stephen Harper.  The only difference between the current Conservatives and the GOP is that in Canadian politics, it is still prudent to stifle the wingnut theocratic backbenchers, because that stuff doesn't play well outside of some pockets of Alberta and BC.

          (I miss Joe Clark...)

          by Dale on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:42:34 AM PDT

          •  And the stifling will end

            if the Conservatives win a majority in the next election.

            Harper is strong right now (although his handling of Israel/Lebanon has shaken his approval ratings) and he keeps pushing for a confidence vote. You don't like the softwood lumber deal? We'll take it to a confidence vote. You don't like Rona Ambrose as Minister of Environment? We'll take it to a confidence vote.

            by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:22:55 AM PDT

            •  Yeah.

              It's because he hasn't done enough to turn off voters so far, and the Liberals are in disarray.

              He basically has them by the balls right now.

              by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:24:59 AM PDT

            •  It is worrisome.

              When I was in Canada a few weeks ago, I read in the Globe and Mail about a very passionate speech that Harper had given -- I think to the UN -- defending immigration, arguing that their integration into the West would help to make those nations safer, not the opposite.  It sounded reasonable and principled, and I was caught thinking to myself, "not bad, Harper."

              But you just gotta know that behind the scenes, Harper is gnashing his teeth, thumbing through his copy of Handmaid's Tale!  And not as a cautionary tale, but as a how-to guide for his majority gov't agenda. :-(

              by Dale on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:37:51 AM PDT

              •  What an image!

                You mean we ought to ban Handmaid's Tale to protect Canada from the Harper's Neocons?

                When I first read that book years ago, I thought it was ridiculously far-fetched, just a little speculative fiction but in the past year, I have totally seen how it could come true.

                by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:43:22 AM PDT

                •  I know.

                  I read it during the Clinton/Chretien years, when I thought I could chuckle over it as a relic of the Reagan era.  

                  And then when Bush got into office, his first act as President was to deny funding to overseas aid groups that provide counseling on family planning, and I thought, "oh, yeah.... I forgot about those there years...."  But that, of course, was a gesture of cautious moderation compared to what would follow.

                  In all seriousness, though, I think Harper would have an uphill climb trying to sell theocracy to Canada, at least outside of Alberta.  The GOP is building on centuries of evangelical culture in America, and I just don't think the conditions are presently there in Canada to push that kind of agenda.  But I've been wrong before...

                  by Dale on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:58:00 AM PDT

                  •  I hope you're not wrong

                    I wouldn't know my own country if we had a shift to evangelicalism.

                    by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:05:18 AM PDT

      •  Whats with the leftist party?

        I get all my Canadian politics from the Economist since the papers in the States could care less and I'm from Upstate New York, I could be in Canada in an hour and a half.  And how can you form a minority government without coalition partners who give you over 50% of the MPs for the prime minister vote (or whatever the process is for selecting the government in Canada's system)?

        by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:39:33 AM PDT

        •  Minority governments

          Don't tend to last to long....basically the leader of the party with the most seats is the PM.   With 4 parties with a significant number of seats, the party with the PM could easily have less then 50% of the seats.

          As for being able to govern it's a juggling act.

          But right now the Liberals who are leader less until November are not going to bring the gov down for another election and the Bloc is not as well in Quebec right now.....so a election isn't in the near future.

          And the conservatives know it.

          by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:43:41 AM PDT

          •  But how do they pass anything?

            You still need a majority to pass legislation, right?

            by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:55:05 AM PDT

            •  Read the comment about the Bloc below....

              Basically a party with 50 or os seats has been supporting the COnservatives on most issues.....more then enough to keep things passed.

              Also the conservatives haven't hit to many hot button issues.....

              by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:57:10 AM PDT

              •  I see

                The parties kind of remind me of British politics.  I spent a year there in 2000-01 and saw how a system worked with more than two parties.  There they had the Liberal Democrats (kinda like the NDP I think), Labour (Liberal), and Conservatives.  They also had a much smaller presence of sepratist parties from Scotland and Wales, like a watered down version of the BQ.

                by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:07:28 AM PDT

                •  Very much a better comparison

                  Then US politics...

                  by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:08:35 AM PDT

              •  I don't agree

                The Bloc voted for the budget because the Cons promised to address their position on fiscal imbalance. Anyway, at the time both the Liberals and the NDP were quite happy to see the minority government standing. With no leader, the Liberals were certainly not ready to go to the polls (with Mr. "no-fly-list" Graham as a weak interim leader). As for the NDP, they don't have the dough to go through a second election in a few months.

                And make no mistake about it. We'll have an election next year, with a new Liberal leader and the Cons having to defend their record. And what a record:

                • ditching Kyoto
                • fumbling the whole Lebanon war issue
                • betraying Canadian interests in the softwood lumber dispute
                • ditching the long-standing Canadian foreign policy and replacing it by ass-kissing whatever Bush says
                • raising income taxes on low income earners
                • Trying to silence the press à la Bush
                • An upcoming vote on gay marriage

                Most of these issues go against the grain in three regions where the Cons need to make gains to get a majority: Quebec, Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver. If the Cons can't make gains there, there won't be a majority.

                by ClaudeB on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:22:08 AM PDT

                •  Oh I agree with you

                  They have hit some issues but nothing that has been pushed back by the opposition that hard....because they are simply not ready for another election.....

                  The Budget was a big deal and the Bloc did support it.....

                  Harper has been horrible so far but it has mainly been low profile horrible compared to what I think he would be doing if he had a majority.....plus the media has been giving Harper a long Honey Moon.

                  by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:38:38 AM PDT

        •  Well.

          A lot of Canada's progressive achievements are BECAUSE of the leftist party--the New Democratic Party.  They were the ones who innovated universal health care on a provincial level (against HUGE opposition from doctors and the business class), and they were the ones who pushed the Liberal Party leftwards during the post-war period.

          You have to understand that throughout Canadian history, "Liberal" and "Conservative" governments have been interchangeable for the most part.  There wasn't much of an ideological tone in the first half of the 20th century to the parties.  It was all about governance and patronage.  That steadily changed throughout the last 50 years, but still, for the most part, there wasn't an incredible chasm between Liberals and Conservatives.  However, the Conservative Party is lurching ever more to the right, and Liberals seem to be standing more or less still, so more ideological distinctions are being made.

          As for your minority gov't question: well, the Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec-centric separatist party, is giving their support to the Conservatives so that they'll get some goodies for their province, presumably.

          by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

        •  I think the opposition parties

          have to be able to form their own coalitions in order to counter the minority government.  Otherwise, the minority gov't stays in place until a vote of no confidence is held, which (should it succeed) effectively dissolves parliament and requires the calling of a new election.

          The New Democratic Party did reasonably well this last election; they tend to do well when the Conservatives do well, as they benefit from disgruntled Liberal voters who want to park their protest vote in the non-wingnut column.

          As for the Liberals -- which would be safer described as center-left, or just center (they tend to be pretty pro-business) -- they were taken down via a scandal that had to do with inappropriate use of funds during the referendum vote in Quebec in 1995.  Someone who knows more can chime in here...

          by Dale on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:50:39 AM PDT

          •  I like the Liberals

            Yes they are pro-business.   But they also do things like Gay marriage, Kyoto and support other progressive ideas......they don't do it as quickly as the NDP would but they also did manange to have 9 Years of Budget Surplus's and pay down 11% of the national Debt.

            Not a balance I mind...

            by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:54:08 AM PDT

            •  The Liberals represent the Canadian majority

              Full stop.  If you want to know where the general mood of the country is at any particular moment, you look at the Liberals.

              by Northwatch on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:35:33 AM PDT

            •  Yes, on balance,

              the Liberals are fine, and I particularly admire the steps they made in the last few years over gay marriage and day care; pot decriminalization is also an indication that they were tentatively pushing in the direction of small-l "liberal" tolerance one sees in Western Europe.

              With respect to day care, they were pushed to do so by the NDP, of course, and it has been a good thing, as even Harper has felt the need to pay some kind of lip service to it with his own plan -- savings accounts, or something like that, I can't remember.

              I was annoyed, though, with the Libs in the early 90s, when they were such deficit hawks, but that's the position that Mulroney put them in, with their profligate spending in the late 80s.  (Notice a pattern here?  "Conservatives" such as Reagan and Mulroney run up the deficit; "liberals" such as Chretien and Clinton have to tighten belts and rein it in.)

              It will be interesting to see what comes of the leadership race.  As much as I admire their individual policies, we haven't seen a genuine decision on the leadership in about a decade and a half; with Martin as a kind of heir to Chretien's throne, there was no way to really address the question of the party's direction, other than to guess what Martin would do.  

              What is the lastest on the Liberal race?  I really don't want to see Ignatieff get it, particularly after he penned articles for the American chattering classes such as "American Empire:  Get Used To It," for the NY Times Magazine.  It's not the neocon blowhards I worry about on such questions, because their rhetoric is easy to dismiss.  What I really think got us into this mess is "liberal" hawks such as Ignatieff, who politely and calmly explain to us why the patently crazy is prudently sane.

              by Dale on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:32:07 AM PDT

              •  Liberal leadership race

                is going to be a hot topic at The Next Agenda. We already have a diary on the Recommended list about it.

                Come and join us.

                by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:45:45 AM PDT

                •  Thanks!

                  As an expat, I'm a little clued out, so it will be good to brush up.  See you there.

                  by Dale on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:59:28 AM PDT

          •  Also, fatigue.

            Canadian politics has a familiar pendulum-motion to it: Liberals for three or four terms, followed by a term or two of Conservatives.

            We had the Chretien Liberals for three terms: 1993-2003; followed by a shaky Martin Liberal period: 2003-2006.  That's a hell of a long time for one party to be in power.  Naturally, voters get tired of seeing one party controlling the gov't for that long.

            But look at the 60s and 70s: those decades were dominated by Liberal gov'ts from Pearson to Trudeau.  Then, the pendulum briefly swung to Clark, then back to Trudeau for a term, and then to Mulroney for a couple terms.  The pendulum leans more heavily to the Liberal side of things, but if the party doesn't smarten up, Harper could enjoy more than one term himself.

            by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:57:27 AM PDT

    •  Well we had a funny guy called Preston Manning

      Out west for awhile and he started the Reform Party in the 90's I believe they became the Alliance for only a bit.....

      The central conservatives where called wait for it.....the Progressive Conservatives.....in fact thats the party the reform left.

      by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:34:30 AM PDT

      •  What about Stockwell Day

        I seem to remember that name from a couple of years ago.

        by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:29:21 AM PDT

        •  you know that Jet Ski comment

          Of mine below...that was Stockwell Day, he was basically the cool new, young face of conservatives that replaced Preston.   He didn't raise there stock any and well we was defeated, I believe he is still a member of parliment.

          by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:37:33 AM PDT

          •  Stockwell Day is Chertoff's opposite

            As Public Safety Minister, not competent or capable.

            I read an article the other day, admittedly the other day that said Day doesn't actually suck at his job.

            Okay, it says people are impressed.  They're also all on the Con/Reform side who are quoted, but hey, you can't ask the Libs or the NDP for an unbiased view can you?

            Rick Anderson, who worked for Day's predecessor Preston Manning, was a bitter nemesis of Day. Anderson was eventually shoved out of the party executive for his criticism of Day's leadership.

            But Anderson is now among those lauding Day.

            "He's one of the ministers who's performing quite ably," Anderson said. "Stockwell was a pretty steady finance minister in Alberta and he's proving to be a pretty steady public safety minister. He's got a feel for those issues, and he's got a job description that's relatively clear. He's got a priority area where he's getting support from the prime minister."

            Inside Day's department, bureaucrats say they're pleasantly surprised by how the minister has taken to his job.

            Word is that while Day has specific views on policy files, some of them based on a strong law-order bent, officials say he is open to hearing alternate views and is diligent about reading up on files. They say he isn't addicted to creating headlines for himself, and has gained the respect of the skeptics in the public service.

            Emphasis mine

            Maybe I should diary this.

            by Bionic on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:17:24 AM PDT

            •  'Quite ably'???

              That sounds a bit like damning with faint praise if you ask me.

              by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:47:19 AM PDT

          •  Yes, he's still an MP

            He's also in Harper's cabinet, Minister of Public Works.

            He's also a hardcore fundie. And a creationist.

            by FrankFrink on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 04:52:57 PM PDT

            •  Public Safety, 'Works' n/t

              by FrankFrink on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 04:53:28 PM PDT

    •  The Reform Party

      Or the Federal Western Christofascists joined forces with the Progressive Conservative Party and renamed the new alliance the Conservative Party, about 4 yrs back... to lazy to Google the exact date.

      I still use the obsolete term "PC's" to refer to the Conservatives... I'm sure a lot of us over 30 do it. I've always felt it was quite the symbolic gesture for the Conservatives to drop the "Progressive."

      The term "fuckin' Tories" remains the same.

      by howth of murph on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:36:23 AM PDT

      •  Hey, at least you don't have Republicans

        Or Southerners for that matter.  I'll take Rocky Mountain and Great Plains conservatives over the South Carolina types anyday.

        by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:41:47 AM PDT

      •  In the last election

        I kept saying to everyone who was thinking about voting PC "Conservatives, not PC's! This is not the Progressive Conservative party that you think you know."

        I think we have to make the distinction exactly because we might remember the PCs as being OK.

        by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:27:31 AM PDT

    •  further to hellofasandwhich's comment

      At one time, when the Reform party was negotiating a merger with the Conservatives, their party name was Canadian-Reform Alliance Party (CRAP).

      BTW, in the last two federal elections, GOP "consultants" were up here helping them out. Next election, i plan on pushing hard to out these foreign meddlers.

      by subtropolis on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:20:02 AM PDT

      •  I with you

        Harper can't get a majority......the damage they would do in 4 years would set back Canada a long way.

        by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:23:09 AM PDT

      •  subtropolis

        Do you have any references I can use for the GOP consultants. This came up over at The Next Agenda and I could only answer with patterns, not hard evidence.

        by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:31:12 AM PDT

        •  i'll check

          But i really have to get back to work. Stay tuned.

          by subtropolis on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:38:59 AM PDT

          •  Thanks

            No hurry.

            by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:40:17 AM PDT

        •  Here we go

          GOP STRATEGIST LUNTZ SETS SIGHTS ON CANADA'S CONSERVATIVES

          Last  Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he would no longer be giving news conferences to the national media. Speaking to A-Channel in London, Ontario, Harper said that, "Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government."

          "They don't ask questions at my press conferences now. We'll just take the message out on the road. There's lots of media who do want to ask questions and hear what the government is doing," he said.

          Harper's new policy appears to come directly from the Bush media strategy playbook -- sidestep the so-called hostile national media and play to a more receptive local media.

          Interestingly enough, Harper's announcement came less than two weeks after meeting with Republican strategist and pollster Frank Luntz.

          Spurned by Washington Republicans, Frank Luntz turns to Canada

          After meeting in Canada with Stephen Harper, Luntz pointed out that "The Canadian and U.S. leaders could not be more different. Stephen Harper is a genuine intellectual, brilliant in his understanding of issues."

          Luntz, perhaps suspecting that he'd said too much, added: "I think I'll leave it at that."

          ~snicker~

          Dig up dirt on Liberals, U.S. pollster advises Tory group (behind the membership wall at Globe & Mail)

          Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should do its best over the coming year to dig up embarrassing information on the former Liberal administration and portray it as corrupt, a prominent U.S. Republican pollster has told an influential group of Conservatives.

          by subtropolis on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:33:01 AM PDT

          •  Thanks so much!

            I wish I could give you a 5!

            by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:48:00 AM PDT

          •  You've practically got a diary right here

            Why don't you post this over at The NA?

            by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:51:58 AM PDT

            •  good idea

              Maybe i'll poke into it some more this weekend. Very busy though—wrapping things up before vacation. Lake Huron, here i come!

              by subtropolis on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:32:45 PM PDT

  •  Mike

    Could I interest you in cross-posting this diary at The Next Agenda?

    My sister, Bionic, and I have set up a blog for Canadian politics using the Scoop platform so it works very much like dkos. Lots of Kossacks over there.

    Cheers.

    by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:39:49 AM PDT

    •  Haha

      While you typed that I was registering on your site.....it's already posted.

      by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:50:37 AM PDT

      •  Wonderful!

        by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:53:01 AM PDT

•  Hey, at least he's doing something

  even though it's a photo op.

  Bush FLEW OVER New Orleans a couple days after Katrina.  He was too chicken to even land.

  by bherner on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:19:56 AM PDT

  •  I'd rather he be doing something other then

    a photo Op.....

    Like meeting with a shipping company to get boats to the area or flying to Israel to make sure the other 99.8% of evacuees will be okay......

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:25:07 AM PDT

    •  Plus

      it is already 4 days after Canadians were killed in Lebanon. The situation is very much akin to Bush's response to Katrina. Even though Harper was in St. Petersberg, he kept the reins on McKay in terms of directing Canada's response.

      by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:33:22 AM PDT

  •  Didn't Al Gore do a similar private pick-up

    during Katrina? And not as a photo-op.

    by FrankFrink on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 04:55:55 PM PDT

•  Not a big fan of Harper.

  Especially since he's turning a blind eye to the deaths of Canadians in Lebanon right now.

  Not very impressive.

  by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:36:30 AM PDT

  •  Supression of the Media

    Big miltary spending (perhaps needed to a degree) and strong conservative international statments......he's looking ugly.

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:45:15 AM PDT

    •  I'm kind of okay with military spending...

      ...as long as it's smart spending, of course.  We could use a bit of a stronger military.  It doesn't need to be exceptional, but it should be able to play a key role if needed.

      Bingo about the media suppression.  Harper is trying to work the media like Bush.  He's a clever one.

      He's also very clever to tie into national symbols like hockey.  It's almost amazing that no politicians were doing this before.  Now he's coming across as a hockey dad, which makes me nervous that any of the current crop of Liberals could beat him.

      by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:51:27 AM PDT

      •  He honestly scares me

        I think he has a good team around him and he is smoother then people give him credit for.......but when it comes down to it his views are not inline with the mainstream of Canada....He just does a good job of avoiding that fact:)

        by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:55:49 AM PDT

        •  Harper wants a majority government

          so badly he's willing to muzzle the Alberta Taliban faction of his own party and avoid ANY controversial issues in Parliament. The only thing I have seen him do since becoming PM is to campaign for a majority government at the next election (spring of 2007,imho). There is no conservative agenda, no foreign policy except supporting the idiot currently occupying the White House, and no economic agenda except tax breaks for business in exchange for campaign contributions and handouts to Quebec (isn't that ironic after the years of Quebec-bashing) to buy votes in the next election.

          The real fun will start if Harper gets a majority government. The  neocons and the Alberta Taliban will be unleashed upon a naieve canadian public and we will take a giant leap into US-style insanity.

          by skrymir on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:16:25 AM PDT

          •  Haha

            And you guys thought you were safe with your sensible outlook on the world.

            by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:18:06 AM PDT

      •  Huh?

        Canadian politicians didn't try to associate themselves with popular sports?  I thought that was a given for politicans in all countries.

        by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:59:03 AM PDT

        •  No, not really.

          Canadian politicians never really tugged at the emotional/patriotic heart-strings of voters like they do in the States and elsewhere.  Trudeau was a bit of an exception, but for the most part, Canadian politicians are technocratic.  Harper, for instance, has been saying "God Bless Canada!" at the end of his speeches, and a lot of people are freaked out because no one ever says anything like that.  Ever.

          There was a Canadian Conservative politician in the 70s... Robert Stanfield was his name (spelling may be off), who did play catch football for a photo-op, but on ONE THROW out of many he dropped the ball and the picture made it look embarrassingly pathetic.  Some say it cost him a good share of the vote.  I think Canadian politicians have been avoiding the football ever since.

          by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:03:55 AM PDT

          •  And Jet Skis

            :)

            by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:09:23 AM PDT

          •  I see

            No wonder we don't hear about Canadian politicians, they're so booooring!  Don't you guys know that politics is just another form of entertainment?  To hell with "technocrats" and their "competancy" (hehe, I probably spelled that wrong), we need blow jobs and baseball team owners and shooting people in the face!  That's what makes a good politician!

            by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:13:44 AM PDT

            •  The only one who wasn't boring...

              ...was Trudeau.  He was probably the coolest motherfucker of them all.

              I mean, look at him:

              

              by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:20:27 AM PDT

              •  That is freakin awesome

                I wish more pols would dress like that.  What's with all the cowboy hats?  

                by slothlax on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:23:37 AM PDT

                •  1970 Grey Cup in Toronto

                  Montreal vs Calgary (hence the hats)

                  He was heading down to present the trophy (Montreal won, so he was probably feeling a little extra chipper). He was a huge fan of Canadian football.

                  by subtropolis on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:36:22 AM PDT

            •  You need to know more about Canadian politics

              Don't you guys know that politics is just another form of entertainment?

              Oh, but they are.  It's just that we don't go for trivial things like blowjobs in offices.  Trudeau was screwing musicians on rocks in the middle of lakes while his wife was a groupie for the Rolling Stones and snorting coke.  No big deal.

              You have to know Canadian politics to get the humour.  And it is really funny.  The British Columbia provincial government (of whatever party) is a guaranteed source of amusement.

              by Northwatch on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:43:10 AM PDT

      •  Thing is...

        ...the hockey thing isn't all artificial pandering.  He really is a knowledgeable hockey fan (he's writing a book on the history of the game in Canada), and he really is a hockey dad.  I'll give him credit for that.

        He's still a weasel, but at least he's an honest fan.

        by Northwatch on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:38:54 AM PDT

        •  I'm sure he is.

          But there's no doubt that he's writing that book in large part to endear himself to voters.

          A few months ago, there was a Republican strategist who gave a lecture to top Conservative party members and strategists.  This Republican emphasized tying the party brand to things that all Canadians share a pride in, like hockey.  And, sure enough, Harper really seems to have been identifying himself with hockey  more and more.

          It's damn smart politics, and it just may work.

          by HellofaSandwich on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 09:46:58 AM PDT

•  As my mother says

  Why is Harper taking up space on an evacuation plane that could be better used by one of the evacuees?

  Better yet, why doesn't he go and spend some time in Lebanon until all of the evacuees are rescued?

  by Thursday Next on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:06:18 AM PDT

  •  He's trying to be clever

    "The plane will be "stripped down" with as few crew members on board as possible to allow for more room for the stranded Canadians, Harper said. The rest of the Canadian delegation and reporters who have been travelling with the prime minister have been told that they cannot stay on the plane for the same reason."

    Who is he bringing?

    "Officials said only Harper's wife, Laureen, and a couple of his communications staff and his official photographer, will fly to Cyprus with him. "

    Just enough people for a photo op.....

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:08:28 AM PDT

    •  I'd love to be a fly and watch the 'thankful'

      Canadians who will fly with Harper and his entourage, given the fumbled response and today's confusion at Beirut harbour (the Canadian ambassador was copiously jeered by the crowd there). I'll bet they'll give him a earful!

      by ClaudeB on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 10:55:42 AM PDT

•  Sorry for the loss of your 9 citizens

  by AllisonInSeattle on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 11:58:06 AM PDT