|
http://www.aim.org/guest_column_print/4329_0_6_0/ Conservative Canadian Prime Minister-elect Espouses Positive
Change By Paul M. Weyrich | January 26, 2006 . . . it is clear that Canada wanted change and enough
Canadian voters felt that the Conservative Party was the instrument to realize
that change.
It has been rather exciting to watch the Canadian Elections. I had the benefit of discussing the projections with one Gerald Chipeur, an Alberta attorney who is involved with Conservatives in Canada. Chipeur called the elections right-on-the-money. He advised me via e-mail a few days before last Monday's Elections that Liberals would not win despite reports by the United States media that the Liberals were closing the gap. In fact, Chipeur and I inadvertently were involved in the Elections a few days before Election Day. Chipeur had contacted Free Congress out of concern for what the leftwing Canadian media could do to obtain from some unsuspecting United States conservative an off-the-charts quote which could be hung around Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper's neck. I asked my associate Bob Thompson, who runs our Coalition meetings, to tell American conservatives what the media up north intended to do and request that folks not conduct interviews until after the Canadian Elections. Of course, in this city of leaks, our e-mail had been released only a few hours before I received a call from the Canadian News Service. Our e-mail message mentioning Chipeur was read back to me. Someone among the large group of folks who received the e-mail allegedly did himself a small favor by selling us out. The e-mail itself then became a story. I have not spoken with Chipeur but I suspect that he also received telephone calls from every prominent Canadian news operation. After speaking with two Canadian reporters I chose not to return such telephone calls. In the end, there just wasn't enough there to make a fuss, although there was potential to blow this sky high. Conservatives did not conduct interviews. Small victory. The morning after the Elections, it so happened I spoke with two Canadian Conservatives who had worked hard to win. One was thrilled with the outcome. The other was defeated, proclaiming the Elections a disaster. My pessimistic friend said that inasmuch as Harper's is a minority government, Harper could do almost nothing to encourage the Country to adopt a more reasonable view of the United States and to correct some premises of Cultural Marxism, which Canadians have espoused, such as same-sex marriage and abortion-on-demand. Having often been confronted with two opposing views of policy and political questions in the United States, I determined that I personally would investigate the situation and found: The people of Canada have become so liberal and hedonistic that the public ethic in the Country immediately could not reversed. It will take time. But with leadership it well may be possible to change the public ethic. One Conservative suggested that Harper's nationwide victory is the equivalent of the election of Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) as Governor of Massachusetts. It would take time for voters to adjust to their new government. Some party operatives already are looking ahead to the Canadian elections in four years. Incumbents in Parliament have a tremendous advantage, my source said, and they could realize that advantage in four years. If they accomplish constructive goals they will be capable of building support. One source said it is unlikely that the plug would be pulled at one moment. He explained that the Separatist bloc in Quebec wants the Conservative Party in power because it is the only party which supports a decentralized government and would confer power on the Provinces. Some liken the Conservative position to non-racist States rights in the United States. A more positive observer claims that if Harper were to dismantle the liberal, wasteful big government programs established by the Liberal Party while it was in power for 13 consecutive years Harper would have a super majority of 175 votes to defeat big government Liberals. Brian Mulroney, of Quebec, who served two terms as Prime Minister during the
Reagan years, broke a string of Liberal victories which began to occur when John
Diefenbaker was ousted by Liberals in 1962. Nonetheless, Liberals have dominated
Canadian politics for four decades, much the way Democrats dominated United
States politics from 1932 to 1994. It takes 155 votes to win outright control of
Parliament. Harper has 134 votes riding. He will need a significant bloc of
votes from other parties. Harper is pleased that the media and many in his own party are nay-saying. Harper thinks that such pessimism would lower expectations and give him additional latitude to accomplish his agenda. Harper's game plan apparently is to pit the Federalist Liberals against Bloc Québécois and the decentralizing bloc against big-government Liberals. Canadian media understands that Stephen Harper greatly would expand defense spending. He does not like the Kyoto Treaty. Paul Martin, the incumbent whom Harper ousted, ran an anti-United States campaign. It worked for Martin last year. This year it did not. More importantly, Harper favors participating in the United States missile defense program. Martin opposed such participation. It is not widely known in this country that a Canadian Prime Minister has more power than a United States President. Harper could appoint 5,000 new officials. (No confirmation is required by the Canadian Parliament.) The Prime Minister also could appoint every judge from the trial courts, to the Courts of Appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, as vacancies occur. Harper's partisans believe he could maintain power for four years, during which time Conservatives hopefully would witness many vacancies created by Liberals leaving the Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada currently is dominated by Liberals. As has been the case in the United States, Cultural Marxism largely has been foisted upon Canada by the Courts. If judges who respect the Constitution were to be appointed they would confirm that such rights are not to be found in that document. Sound familiar? One thing both pessimists and optimists agree about a Conservative Canadian Government is that Harper would not propose anti-abortion legislation soon, if at all. He would need a super majority to address that issue. Conversely, if Harper were to alter the composition of the Courts the anti-abortion issue again could be contemplated. Who is correct? I'm unsure. But it is clear that Canada wanted change and enough Canadian voters felt that the Conservative Party was the instrument to realize that change. Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
