A strange new pattern of Canadian political behaviour is gaining momentum - when under heavy fire, flee to Kandahar.
The base for 2,500 Canadian troops has become the runaway photo op of choice for the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and government MPs trying to duck the harsh glare of their own poll-driven frailties and foibles back home.
These prime ministerial trips are logistical and security nightmares, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to fly politicians and their entourages halfway around the world to give the appearance of personal risk while wrapped inside a protective military bubble.
Mr. Harper's first trip to the region was in the heat of a domestic political battle when he stoutly refused to allow a debate on the Kandahar deployment before reversing himself a few months later.
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has been to Kandahar three times with every trip taking off across the Atlantic just ahead of a rumble of calls for his resignation in the House of Commons. He was there just two months ago and is back there with the Prime Minister now.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay has gone twice while Cabinet colleagues Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Treasury Board president Vic Toews and Environment Minister John Baird did a tour along with tagalong Conservative MPs Helena Guergis, Ted Menzies, Laurie Hawn, Jay Hill and Rick Casson.
I'd actually cut O'Connor some slack, it is his portfolio, and there is an argument for a hands on approach. However, Martin makes a relevant point about expenditures and inconvenience. Everytime we send these high-profile delegations, it distracts from the military, who really have more pressing tasks than making sure politicians are safe. How many Afghan schools could be built for the money it costs to send people half around the world, for what was is essentially a photo-op?
Should the Prime Minister express support for the mission? No question, and I would offer his embarrassing, partisan performance, at the Support the Troops rally a couple weeks ago, as a suitable venue. The problem with these trips, as Martin highlights, there seems a co-relation between political consideration and the visit. A reporter actually asked Harper today if his trip was politically motivated, to which he responded that principle, not polls, drive him. Okay, sure.
Oh Steve, you are being far too kind.
ReplyDeleteI think Martin is dead on, though I don't think that the right wing media bastion of the National Post would agree.
In fact, I think Martin, (as a conservative), is showing just how shallow this PM is and he did it very well.
To be honest, I cannot figure out who the con's are, who support this PM.
Who knew that the National Posterior would tell such a true story about Harper?
knb
ReplyDeleteI take it as a sure sign that the worm has really turned, when what has been a propaganda paper for the Tories, acts like an objective news source. You just can't ignore this stuff, it insults even the most tainted senses. If Sun Media turns, we might be looking at a Kim Campbell situation ;)
How can anyone look at this trip and not be cynical about it.
ReplyDeleteI should think Martin wants to maintain his credibility.
Besides, when he does another column fawning over Harper he can point to this one to say he is objective.
gayle
ReplyDeleteMartin did get the Tory playbook story, so he has served a purpose :)
Darren shows there is still work to do.
To be honest, I cannot figure out who the con's are, who support this PM.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, you might want to get out of Toronto and have a look. There are all kinds of people in this great country of Canada. They are not better than you or worse; they are just different.
Oddly enough anon, I live in Edmonton, and know only a handful of people who support Harper (and they are mostly my family :)).
ReplyDeletePoint being, one does not have to live in Toronto to dislike him, anymore than being in Alberta means I must like him.
The only good thing that can come out of this "photo-op" will be that O'Connor finds the three detainees he "lost" earlier this year.
ReplyDeleteWell Gayle, whether you know them personally or not, someone there in Alberta is voting for Harper. 65% of voters in the last election with his closest competition at 15%. Even in Ontario he got 35% of the vote compared to 40% for the Liberals.
ReplyDeleteIt's not about liking or disliking Harper. My point is that to say "I have no idea who these people are who would even vote for Harper" is to admit that one lives in bubble and doesn't even know what a full 1/3 of the country's population is about. Or even acknowledge that they exist. Very strange.
I support our troops and all the work they do in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteI support our efforts to bring security to Afghanistan and creating a safe environment without corruption.
But does that require that I support authoritarian Stephen Harper and his secrete scandalous government, which only serves as bad example. Harpers seems not indebted to the Canadian public who elected him, but to big oil money and American republicans who financed him. I don't know who financed Harper's campaign in 2002, because it is his dirty secrete. http://canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2007/05/who-owns-stephen-harper-he-still-wont.html
I definitely don't support Harper using our loyal troops as his photo back drop.
Anon, your arrogant assumption, completely misses my point. I said support Harper now, not who voted for him.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I have travelled most of this country of ours and do not live in a bubble.
Secondly, my point was, many conservatives are openly musing about how un-conservative this PM is. The So-Cons aren't happy, (he's not spoken to their agenda), the former PC's aren't happy (in this case they think he's too far to the right), and fiscal conservatives aren't happy (his spending is out of control and hasn't cut taxes).
So my point is, who are the conservatives that support this guy? What do they stand for?
My guess is nothing, other than the fact that they have a PM that calls himself a conservative.
Doesn't there come a time when no matter what party you support when there is a bad leader it's time to get rid of that leader?
ReplyDeleteTo vote for the sake of voting for your party no matter how bad the leader is, is irresponsible.
The west would vote for Harper even if he shot their mother. Something's wrong here.
So my point is, who are the conservatives that support this guy? What do they stand for?
ReplyDeleteKnb: Anonymous answered your question; they are the parochials who think everyone who doesn't agree with them is living in some sort of bubble.
I find it funny that anonymous claims the rest of us don't know the 1/3 of the country that voted for the Harper party very well. I'm sure he (or possibly she) doesn't know either, but that doesn't prevent anonymous from implying otherwise.
I'm suspicious that this Harper trip is pre-planned with George Bush. Bush has told NATO he wants more troops and equpment in Afghanistan - Bush calls the shots for NATO?
ReplyDeleteAt the same time Harper is pumping up the troops and indicating that we'll be there after 2009, Bush is making a speech pumping up the Afghan mission, using the same old rhetoric.
I have to wonder what Harper has indicated to Bush about Iran.
A journalist from Calgary, Arthur Kent, was on CTV's Newsnet asking why is Harper supporting a totally corrupt government (Karzai) and a sham of a democratic government in Afghanistan. Kent wonders why Harper doesn't do something about Karzai and his government while the troops are working so hard.
Something smells very fishy here.
anon. (12:37 PM, May 23, 2007)
ReplyDeleteInteresting and scary comment(s). Could be that ..... where there is smoke there is fire
I wondered the same (US prompting/coaching) regarding the Baird's clarification (?) to the UN on his environment plan as well.
Cross boarder Ventriloquism