Who will replace Harper?

[eemy]

Almost every picture I see of Chris Alexander, my first thought is that he needs a haircut.

They had O'Leary on the CBC afternoon show in Toronto yesterday. His message came across rather flat to me. I thought he did a pretty decent job distinguishing himself as not being a Canadian version of Trump (primarily emphasizing his support for immigration and his own family's background as immigrants). I think this link is going to be difficult for him to shake, though.

His attacks on Trudeau felt a bit disingenuous to me, and some of his talking points seemed plainly untrue. Are the Liberals actually planning on deficit spending for the next 38 years? That's certainly news to me. In that sense, he was very much like Trump in that he seemed to be trying to give traction to a message that is rooted in falsehood, which was a campaign tactic we saw over and over with Trump. He was definitely focused on Trudeau, which might actually be more effective with the Conservative Party base. Trudeau is still polling quite well, but how many of those people are Conservative Party members? Targeting his attacks against a common boogeyman (and there's no shortage of ill-will toward Trudeau) may work better than focusing on another candidate who he may have to work with in the future and who's well-liked by a significant percentage of members.

He didn't really reveal anything about what sort of changes he would make. He seemed to be banking on his business expertise, but personally, I'm rather cynical about how well that translates into success in politics. Ottawa and Toronto were both burned by mayors who promised to put their business skills to good use straightening out city hall and were utter failures in the end. Trump is entering the presidency with the same promise; his success or failure could end up signaling the electoral success or failure of O'Leary in a leadership scenario.

One issue that may end up being a problem for him is the same one that Ignatieff had. Most importantly, he doesn't seem fully committed to entering politics (not even committing to run in a by-election if he gets the leadership). He also seems very much like a 1%er in the sense that he's more of a global citizen than a Canadian citizen, with residences all around the world. It seems like an awkward fit for the Conservative Party which has generally being proudly anti-elitist.

[Aylmer]

• Video Link

All the ouch. Arlene Dickinson - one of the investor 'dragons' on Dragon's Den - is simply not impressed. at all.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The prof from Concordia (not Carlton) said she held him and Bernier to a high standard. The prof is an expert in translational services in the French dept. IIRC. She said Blaney disappointed her because he was not eloquent and used inappropriate language, etc. given the context of the debate. She also cited an example of when he spoke in English and messed up a saying. She said he said "washy washy" instead of "wishy washy." I understand what she's getting at. Just because someone is a native speaker doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with how they speak.

If you want to listen to her full critique go to the 3PM hour and then go about five minutes or so in.

http://www.newstalk770.com/audio-on-demand-2/

Unfortunately I can't listen to it on my computer.

But I am familiar with Blaney and he doesn't come across as anything but a fluent native Québécois speaker of French.

If he's using inappropriate language or not being sufficiently eloquent for someone who wants to lead a federal party, that's another issue.

Plenty of people who are native speakers and unquestionably sound like native speakers can be non-eloquent and clumsy when speaking in public.

[Airboy]

[QUOTE=Aylmer;

All the ouch. Arlene Dickinson - one of the investor 'dragons' on Dragon's Den - is simply not impressed. at all.[/QUOTE]

Listened to her this morning On our morning show. You could hear in her voice her dislike for the man. She was diplomatic but there was an edge. Her line though "what you see IS what you get". And for business success. He could be much better off but did make bad decisions that cost a lot of people money.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Christ, it's like a virus.

Ford, Brexit, Trump, O'Leary...

Isn't it, though? The infestation of idiocy.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Airboy

He could be much better off but did make bad decisions that cost a lot of people money.

You just described pretty much every very successful business man. What makes them successful is that they take calculated risk that don't always pan out. You don't get rich following the crowd.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

So anybody watch the debate last night? It was probably the best one so far. Maxime Bernier was repeatedly hammered by the rest of the group for his position on ending supply management in the dairy and poultry industry. Like really hammered on it.

To me, Steven Blaney also came out to the forefront in this one. Maybe it's because the debate in his natural language made him more comfortable, but he was very noticeable. Spoke loudly and passionately, not unlike candidates in American debates do. Wonder if this raises his profile a bit.

I watched the debate in its original French and I think it helped in learning about these candidates. I think Chris Alexander and Andrew Scheer did really well, as they spoke excellent French for "English candidates". Seemed very comfortable and natural. Rick Peterson did well in this as well. I thought everyone else was just okay. That is, aside from Brad Trost and Deepak Obhrai. Trost was very shaky, though that may be just me misinterpreting his accent. Obhrai was terrible though. He essentially made no substantive contribution to the debate, because he wasn't able to formulate any of his ideas into French. In the responses that he'd write on paper as others were answering, he just read off very basic Conservative points. His pronunciation was the worst part though. I honestly couldn't pick out a single word 80% of the time he spoke. I've said it before during the English debates, but I'm even more perplexed now; why is he running?

Michael Chong is probably the worst of the middle-French speakers. He isn't his regular charismatic self, and sticks to very basic talking points rather than speaking freely and answering the question directly. Wonder if this will hurt him at all, or if he's popular enough in English Canada and Quebec thinks he's good enough for it not to matter.

And yes, Kevin O'Leary is going to be very interesting here. You'd have to think he'll shoot right up to being one of the front-runners. Business man, tough guy personality, famous; why wouldn't he do well? I do love that he announced the very next day after the French debate though. Completely shameless

Interesting to see different assessments of the Anglos French skills. I've seen a number of people give their assessments and for those who aren't particularly strong in French there are varying opinions.

You mention that Scheer was fairly strong. He touted himself as fluently bilingual when entering the race but I've seen numerous comments on how his French is merely at a beginners level. Some have said his French is fairly good though.

Some have commented that Michael Chong's French is fairly good. One comment I saw compared his ability to Harper's and said he had no issues during the debate despite not necessarily being fluently bilingual.

Chris Alexander has also been called the mostly fluently bilingual candidate in the race. His French has been commended and considered better than Blaney and Bernier's English.

[Taeolas]

For what its worth, I don't see O'Leary as "Canada's Trump". He has some traits in common with Trump, but he has a lot more positives than Trump does. (Doesn't mean I would vote for him, but I'd feel less bad about him as a party leader or even a PM than I would with Trump as Prez).

Kevin is loud, arrogant, and basically tries to take over and run things whenever he can.

But (and I admit it's a feeling I largely get from watching him on TV, so it may not be completely true), he has a lot thicker skin than Trump does. He has some tact and the ability to take criticism a hell of a lot better than Trump does. He works the media and can take the barbs shot at him. He certainly won't be blowing up Twitter every time SNL (or 22 Minutes/RMR) does a skit about him in their shows.

So yeah, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about him running, and he probably/ hopefully won't get the leaderships. But comparing him to Trump is at best a superficial comparison IMO.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Listened to her this morning On our morning show. You could hear in her voice her dislike for the man. She was diplomatic but there was an edge. Her line though "what you see IS what you get". And for business success. He could be much better off but did make bad decisions that cost a lot of people money.

You could see her clear dislike for his character all throughout Dragon's Den too. She's never really hid it.

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

Interesting to see different assessments of the Anglos French skills. I've seen a number of people give their assessments and for those who aren't particularly strong in French there are varying opinions.

You mention that Scheer was fairly strong. He touted himself as fluently bilingual when entering the race but I've seen numerous comments on how his French is merely at a beginners level. Some have said his French is fairly good though.

Some have commented that Michael Chong's French is fairly good. One comment I saw compared his ability to Harper's and said he had no issues during the debate despite not necessarily being fluently bilingual.

Chris Alexander has also been called the mostly fluently bilingual candidate in the race. His French has been commended and considered better than Blaney and Bernier's English.

Yeah, these assessments are of course subjective. Everyone will see it differently. In full disclosure, I probably currently speak French at the same level as Chong, but I spoke like Scheer in my hey day.

I was actually surprised to hear media reports criticizing Scheer's French. To me, he was by far one of the best. Maybe not Alexander or Peterson level, but certainly next after that. To me, he was no question better than Harper. Chong was about at the same level as Harper I thought, but I've always considered that not very good.

Also, anybody else notice how Bernier sways back and forth as he speaks, looking left and right? It drives me absolutely nuts and distracts me from what he actually says. Man just seems fidgety.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

So anybody watch the debate last night? It was probably the best one so far. Maxime Bernier was repeatedly hammered by the rest of the group for his position on ending supply management in the dairy and poultry industry. Like really hammered on it.

The group-think is strong with this crowd. Agree with him or not, it's nice to see someone willing to stand up at a podium and take the stance opposite to virtually everyone else on the stage.

I've always wondered why conservative political candidates continue to support supply management, when it is in conflict with general fiscally conservative principles. Support for free, unfettered markets, as well as supply management is irreconcilable. Not that there aren't other arguments, but of the candidates attacking Bernier, only one gave a rational argument as to why it should be kept; the fact that it would be very expensive to eliminate by buying out farmer quotas. It seems most just support it because it's popular, not for any other particular reason.

Other interesting policy announcements to discuss are Erin O'Toole's call to double defense spending...

I'm actually surprised that this didn't come up more during the debates, given that Canada would have to roughly double defence spending to meet NATO targets, and that Trump has been very vocal in his dismay for freeloading NATO members.

[geotag277]

No one would pretend that Trump or O'Leary are perfect individuals, but the best thing they offer IMO is a choice of someone who has real world experience and has actually had success and understands what businesses need from a policy perspective from government.

It's up to the electorate to decide which figures they want to lead, but personally I find much of the problem with politics is that there is a rather specific atmosphere about it which intensely repels otherwise productive members of society. So what we end up with are a laundry list of career politicians, most of whom were lawyers, that get absorbed into the status quo and are perfectly happen with it. It ends up being hardly a choice at all.

Figures like O'Leary and Trump represent a different type of experience to try to cut through the political BS.

Sure, I would love it if these figures were more "altruistic" and "better business people", but the fact is, people like Arlene Dickinson don't want the job, don't want to put themselves through the circus, and are happy to appear on CBC to give her 5 minutes of opinion and then wash her hands of it. I would vote for Dickinson over O'Leary any day of the week, but the fact is she doesn't want the job, and people like her tend to passionately not want to get involved at all.

Not to mention, it is a huge business risk to get involved, as it tends to alienate half the country from wanting to do business with you (as evidenced by Trump's negative impact to his business after he ran).

[OutOfTowner]

As much as most of the Cons butchered the french language in the french debate,I have to admire them for at least trying. That had to have been tough. When I was learning french, I had to make a little speech in front of maybe 200 schoolmates (most of whom weren't FSL students), The sweat, the nervousness, the linguistic fuck ups!

Bravo to the bunch of them for putting themselves out there, so open to easy ridicule. I actually CAN imagine!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

You could see her clear dislike for his character all throughout Dragon's Den too. She's never really hid it.



Yeah, these assessments are of course subjective. Everyone will see it differently. In full disclosure, I probably currently speak French at the same level as Chong, but I spoke like Scheer in my hey day.

I was actually surprised to hear media reports criticizing Scheer's French. To me, he was by far one of the best. Maybe not Alexander or Peterson level, but certainly next after that. To me, he was no question better than Harper. Chong was about at the same level as Harper I thought, but I've always considered that not very good.

Also, anybody else notice how Bernier sways back and forth as he speaks, looking left and right? It drives me absolutely nuts and distracts me from what he actually says. Man just seems fidgety.

I think Scheer gets criticized for his French because people expect him to be more nimble in the language because he was speaker for 4 years. You need to be quick on your feet in both languages where you're the speaker.

Chong has always been a lot better and more at ease in French than I expect him to be.

Alexander is very good in French. They sent him on Tout le monde en parle when he was Minister of Immigration. They wouldn't have done that if his French wasn't close to top-notch.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

I've always wondered why conservative political candidates continue to support supply management, when it is in conflict with general fiscally conservative principles. Support for free, unfettered markets, as well as supply management is irreconcilable. Not that there aren't other arguments, but of the candidates attacking Bernier, only one gave a rational argument as to why it should be kept; the fact that it would be very expensive to eliminate by buying out farmer quotas. It seems most just support it because it's popular, not for any other particular reason.

Could it be that the Tories don't want to alienate their rural, agricultural base with this issue?

Although Maxime Bernier is from rural Quebec where supply management is also a big deal. So it's still a risk for him, but he's rock-solid in his own riding no matter what he says. And beyond that, the Tories don't have much of a base to lose in most regions of Quebec.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

I've always wondered why conservative political candidates continue to support supply management, when it is in conflict with general fiscally conservative principles. Support for free, unfettered markets, as well as supply management is irreconcilable. Not that there aren't other arguments, but of the candidates attacking Bernier, only one gave a rational argument as to why it should be kept; the fact that it would be very expensive to eliminate by buying out farmer quotas. It seems most just support it because it's popular, not for any other particular reason.

This is just a guess but do those supply management marketing boards donate a lot to political candidates?

Personally, I support supply management just for the record but it's not something I really follow.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by Loco101

This is just a guess but do those supply management marketing boards donate a lot to political candidates?

Personally, I support supply management just for the record but it's not something I really follow.

They wouldn't be able to donate to political party. Members would be able too.

I think the big thing is that they're just a huge lobby group with a lot of sway among the government because of all the people they represent.

[PoscStudent]

Several "high profile" background party people have endorsed Michael Chong over the last week. Geoff Norquay - who's a pundit on Power and Politics and worked for Harper when he was opposition leader - is the latest to endorse Chong. A few others endorsed him last week, including one who's roots are in the Reform Party. Some of these endorsements could be even be more important than those of MPs, if they are actually helping his bid. MPs may have more name recognition but not all of them necessarily have a whole lot of experience when it comes to the organization of winning elections.

It seems as though a lot of people who know about winning elections think he's their best choice. That's not always the priority of people who actually select the leader though.

At this point it seems like the party's membership has declined so much in recent years that the race will come down to whoever can sign up enough new members.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

....One issue that may end up being a problem for him is the same one that Ignatieff had. Most importantly, he doesn't seem fully committed to entering politics (not even committing to run in a by-election if he gets the leadership). He also seems very much like a 1%er in the sense that he's more of a global citizen than a Canadian citizen, with residences all around the world. It seems like an awkward fit for the Conservative Party which has generally being proudly anti-elitist.

Yeah I didn't realize that he really doesn't live in Canada much. As the NP pointed out, at least Ignatieff moved back full time while leader, O'Leary won't even commit to that! That should be an automatic disqualification.

[1overcosc]

If he's lived outside the country for so long wouldn't he not even be an eligible voter anymore? Shouldn't that actually disqualify him from holding the leadership?

[jmt18325]

No, but it may disqualify him from being an MP.