Continuing my coverage of yesterday’s English-Language debate I turn to Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party. For someone appearing in her second nationally televised debate Ms. May did relatively well. In fact she fared much better than she did in the French-Language debate where her weak French left her at a significant disadvantage.
However, while Ms. May did make some good points her shrill attacks – referring to policies of other parties, especially the Conservatives – as everything from frauds, to stupid, suggests she’s not really ready for the political prime time.
While watching the question and answer session with reporters on CTV after the debate I was surprised to hear Ms. May answer a question about negativity by saying that she tried to remain positive.
Then again, Ms. May has had a few moments in recent months that have called into question whether she’s ready. First, there’s the debate over whether or not she suggested Canadian’s are stupid. She’s offered a number of excuses, some conflicting, suggesting she didn’t mean what it sounded like she said.
Steve Paikin, the moderator of yesterday’s debate, reported back on September 12th that may had answered a question about whether or not HUMMER drivers should be jailed by saying:
“No I want them shot actually, jail is not good enough for them!”
Obviously, Ms. May was joking. But her comment suggests that she has a certain disdain for people who don’t subscribe to her particular doom-and-gloom world view.
Ms. May continued her tradition of making jaw-dropping comments yesterday.
First, she suggested “bombing civilians” and “cutting poppies” were part of the reason why Canada’s mission in Afghanistan was languishing.
Perhaps Ms. May is getting intelligence I’m not party to but the last time I checked the only people getting ‘bombed’ in Afghanistan are coalition troops.
Then, speaking on healthcare, Ms. May suggested some conspiracy between the International Monetary Fund and the provinces was responsible for the reduction in the number of healthcare spaces in Canada.
Again, that’s news to me.
Then again, I guess when you’re party has never had a member elected you can pretty much get away with saying whatever you want.
- Rafael.
Funny I don’t remember May being shrill at all.
I do remember all candidates calling Harper a lair at some point in the debate. And if you ever really wanted to you could do the short amount of research to see that they were right.
I am not an IMF conspiracy person to the contrary I understand their mandate and role.
But if May’s comments about the IMF and Canada health care were “news to you”, then you could always go read their reports here:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/1998/113098.HTM
I can’t remember which year May referred to but they are all there for the reading. I know its a bit of work and its a lot easier to rely on the calm soothing lies of the Conservative propaganda machine. You will have to decide for yourself if you really want to be informed or not.
Consider Harper plans to reduce carbon. He mentioned that emission limits would be set and that companies going over that limit would pay penalties into a research fund.
Stop and consider for a moment who would be applying for grants from that fund. All major corporations do R&D to increase efficiencies and thus lower costs. IF they get caught going over their limits they simply pay the fine, then lower their internal R&D budget for the next fiscal and apply for the grant instead.
It must have taken months to come up with a plan that does absolutely nothing.
As a fiscal conservative you have to admit that having no plan would be better then running an expensive charade like that. We tax payers would still have to pay for any monitoring etc, but in the end nothing would be accomplished.
Reading around the blogs it looks like the Conservative Base stuck by their man, but swing voters moved away from Harper.
I think people should vote their principals, but in general I think Conservative voters are being hood-winked.
I say you owe it to yourself to become a better informed voter and publisher.
dave
October 3rd, 2008
Thanks for the excellent example of shrill partisanship that I was talking about Dave.
I’ll try to address your points in order.
First, it looks like Elizabeth May isn’t the only one in the Green Party that needs to learn that correlation does not imply causation.
During a heat wave ice cream sales go up. During a heat wave there’s also increased morbidity among the elderly and infirm. By Green Party logic increased ice cream sales is obviously responsible for deaths among the elderly.
I can understand why Ms. May ignored the obvious – that Jean Cretien’s deep cuts to transfer payments in the early- and mid-nineties were responsible for the provincial cuts. If she mentioned that we might be reminded Stephane Dion was a Minister under Mr. Cretien.
And while I’ll certainly agree that all the leaders were pouring on the rhetoric – I guess comparing people to Bush is almost as good as calling them nazis – I seem to recall Elizabeth May being the only one heckling Mr. Harper while he was trying to answer.
I also don’t recall him doing the same to any of the other party leaders.
I do agree that the Conservative’s environmental plan needs some work. However, the ‘green shift’ is laughable.
First, no plan can be ‘revenue neutral’ since it requires a regulatory framework, administration and enforcement. Second, if the green shift was miraculously effective exactly where would the Liberals (or Green Party assuming they actually ever get around to having an ELECTED member of parliament) get the money to fund all their pet projects?
Your take on the blogsphere is badly skewed. I guess thats what happens when you’re busy running around posting reply after reply about how Ms. May is the best thing since sliced bread.
I also see there’s a wonderfully supportive quote attributed to you on Mr. Wilson’s website.
I’m glad that even people who manage to get turfed from the Liberal Party, only be cleared of 21 of 24 allegations by Elections Canada, and have the Royal Bank foreclose on them can still find a home in the Green Party.
Rafael
October 3rd, 2008